A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, around May 15, 2009, established and operated the Dispute Resolution for the purpose of managing the building in C in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and was engaged in the business of operating and managing the fund of the said Dispute Resolution as a representative director.

On June 15, 2009, the Defendant used KRW 85,22,690 in total for 25 times in the manner of remitting KRW 4 million from the E Bank account in the name of the Defendant to the G Bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant, withdrawing KRW 6,40,000,000 to personal consumption around that time, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from around that time to June 27, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each specification of transactions (E BankF), each specification of transactions (G Bank I), each specification of transactions (G Bank J), each specification of transactions (G BankK), E Bank K, E Bank L, and G Bank H;

1. The cash receipt and disbursement book, and the director of each account;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (componating the details of DK accounts, Co., Ltd.), investigation reports (Attachment of details of post offices N account in the M);

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, inclusive, with respect to applicable Articles of law and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant embezzled a large amount of money while operating the victim company that is a real estate controlled entity, and that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim company is disadvantageous.

However, it is not reasonable to consider the circumstances in which the defendant embezzled the money of the victim company, and the shareholders of the victim company make a disposition that there is no suspicion against the separate accusation case, and the complainant files an appeal against this case, the agreement must proceed en bloc according to the above investigation results, and only the agreement of this case is separate.