A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while serving as the representative director of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located in Scheon-si from December 13, 2005 to November 16, 2010, served as the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), was performed by the said company, and was in overall control of E Co., Ltd., such as fund management related to the implementation of F Business performed by E Co., Ltd., and served as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) for the purpose of golf course operation from September 10 to January 30, 201.

On October 30, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from G in the G office operated by the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, from G Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”), and provided the victim D’s golf course membership with the victim’s security at will equivalent to KRW 330 million per face value.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim D's golf course membership amount of KRW 330 million with a face value of KRW 330 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, K, L and M;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the full amount of registered matters, a certificate of borrowing money, a request for the repayment of debts and the notification of disposal of membership rights, a borrowing certificate and a membership card, the details of use of I borrowed money amounting to 300 million won, a copy of passbook, a statement

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. The summary of the argument is that it was impossible for the Defendant to bear a new obligation under the PF loan agreement, and therefore, he was granted a loan in the name of G, and used 300 million won borrowed from I for D. In full sense, the Defendant did not go through the board of directors, but provided a golf course membership security after undergoing sufficient discussions with other directors, and thus, it cannot be evaluated as embezzlement.

2. The evidence as seen earlier is examined.