The defendant is a person engaged in the excavation of the line, and the victim C is an owner of 9 points in the small-sized gold-free shop which is equivalent to the market price of 170,000,000 won (the victim's assertion) which appears to have been produced in the era of unification.

On August 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a request for sale from the injured party, who became aware of influence in the middle of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gun branch, and from the injured party through the branch D through the branch D, on the nine points of the said small-sized gold club deposit; (b) agreed to immediately return the request and kept nine points on the small-sized gold club deposit for the Defendant; and (c) on September 2014, the Defendant refused to return the said nine points even if the Defendant received request from the first police officer on several occasions on September 2014 on the ground that the injured party failed to perform his/her transaction.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Egrhion of letters sent and received by the complainant or the suspect;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to explain the nine-year period for the small-sized gold club era of the national unification of Korea;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant include: (a) the pertinent statutory provisions regarding the crime; (b) Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment; (c) the Defendant has a number of criminal records having the same reason for sentencing; and (d) the victim’s failure to comply with the victim’s demand to return the gold club deposit of this case before and after the lapse of four years from the date of the crime; (b) the Defendant’s confession and reflects the crime of this case; (c) the Defendant’s confession and reflects the crime of this case; (d) there is insufficient objective data to specify the value of the gold club deposit of this case; (e) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc.; and (e) the sentence like the order shall be determined by