A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From September 3, 2013 to October 31, 2014, the Defendant worked as a local administrative assistant for a victim of Gyeongcheon-si B from Gyeongcheon-si to Gyeongcheon-do, and was in charge of disbursement work as an assistant for cash receipt and disbursement of income tax and other income tax, other than income tax collected.

Defendant kept the revenue and expenditure account (D bank E) in the name of Gyeong-do, where the income tax, etc. collected from the employees of Gyeong-do from the above employees of Gyeong-do was kept for business purposes. On November 29, 2013, Defendant: (a) arbitrarily prepared a deposit sheet at the office of Gyeong-do, the office of Gyeong-do, without obtaining approval from the treasurer and the head of the competent department; (b) voluntarily withdrawn one million won in cash from the central branch of Dacheon-si, Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, the cash amount from the time to July 31, 2014; and (c) used it for personal purposes, such as debt redemption and living expenses, by arbitrarily shipping or transferring the cash in the same way as shown in the attached list of crimes, from the time to July 31, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzleds the property of the victim who has been kept in business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as an accusation (Embezzlement, such as income tax collected at source), passbook (E), advance slip of withdrawal, and written resolution for disbursement;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 355 (1) and 355 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] Class 1 of the mitigated area (one hundred million won or less) [one month or October] [the person subject to special mitigation], or where considerable damage was restored [the decision of sentencing], despite the fact that the defendant was a local public official who is obliged to maintain the highest morality in the ordinary job, the defendant committed the instant crime, and the fact that the amount embezzled by the defendant is not significant is disadvantageous.

The fact that the defendant paid all the amount of embezzlement to the victim, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment.