Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and 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

On September 7, 2015, the Defendant agreed to make an investment of KRW 70 million in the name of the Defendant, the head of the Warsaw Headquarters (the head of the bureau) in the monthly d office located in the fiveth floor of the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with the amount of KRW 70 million from the victim E, and paid KRW 30 million in the national bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant for the victim. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant remitted KRW 30 million to G on September 7, 2015, while the Defendant received KRW 70 million from the national bank account (F) and kept for the victim. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 20 million with the Defendant’s personal investment loan granted to H on September 8, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 20 million for the personal use of the Defendant’s allowance, such as paying KRW 2 million to similar recipients.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the police accused;

1. Statement protocol made by the police for E by the prosecution;

1. Details on the payment of complaint, loan certificate, recording book, statement of deposit transactions, main deed, calendar deed, office set-off, and membership allowances (as set forth in No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the evidence list) shall apply;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of the recommended sentence] Type 1 (100 million won or less) of the Special mitigated Area (1 to 10 million won or less) (1 to 10 months), where the degree of violation is minor, where the non-conformity of the punishment or significant damage was restored (the decision of sentencing] of the defendant's act of committing the instant crime, and the defendant is deeply divided.

In light of the amount of damage of this case, the issue is not somewhat weak, but the damaged person does not want punishment against the defendant due to the recovery of damage.

The defendant is an initial offender who has no record of punishment.

In addition, it shall be decided as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, such as the relationship with the victim and the circumstances leading to the case.