Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On July 15, 2014, at the southcheon Branch of 406, Busan, Suwon-ro, 12:39, the Defendant drafted a monetary check in order to prohibit withdrawal of KRW 11.7 million from the account of community credit cooperatives (C) in the name of the Defendant. However, on July 15, 2014, the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn KRW 23.4 million, which was deposited in the Defendant’s account near the above community credit cooperatives around the above community credit cooperatives on July 12:4, 2014, due to the error of computer work in the employee B, and was treated as deposited in the Defendant’s account.

Accordingly, the defendant made an erroneous deposit by the victim's community credit cooperative due to computer error, and voluntarily withdrawn KRW 23.4 million in the defendant's account and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to specifications of transactions by account and account;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Based on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of Application for Compensation Orders, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the Defendant’s crime of this case; the means and consequence; and various sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime.

D. Unfavorable circumstances: The amount embezzled by the Defendant is not substantial, and the Defendant’s failure to comply with the legitimate request of the victim seeking the return of the amount of money deposited and collected by mistake is not somewhat weak.

The defendant recognized the crime of this case.

There shall be no history of criminal punishment heavier than suspension of qualification.

The defendant agreed to the only extent with the victim.