A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On April 9, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Incheon District Court on April 17, 2015, and the foregoing judgment was finalized on April 17, 2015. A person who operated the Japan Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu from April 2012 to July 2013 as “D” together with the victim E and performed duties such as the payment of public charges and the distribution of profits.

On May 9, 2012, the Defendant deposited its partner's money into the bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant at the above D restaurant, and consumed its partner's money for personal purposes by remitting KRW 528,686 to Hyundai Capital Capital, under the name of repayment for the funds borrowed from Hyundai Capital, while the Defendant kept in business for the victim.

From June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2013, the Defendant consumed 249,300,212 won for personal purposes, as shown in the attached Table 1, 294, as shown in the list of crimes, which he/she had been in custody for the victim from that time. Of these, the Defendant embezzled 179,300,212 won after deducting KRW 70 million (5 million per month) that the Defendant would receive as monthly salary and performance money from May 2012 to June 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination of the accused (including substitute part);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Details of transactions by receiving period, inquiry sheet requesting non-compliance of transactions, investigation report (specific criminal facts constituting embezzlement);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment of criminal records of the same kind as a suspect), application of Acts and subordinate statutes on judgment;

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

1. The fact that the reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Code are considerable in the amount embezzled by the defendant, and that there was no agreement even though the defendant had given an opportunity to agree upon the defendant's repeated request, are contrary to the unfavorable circumstances, and the decision is made.