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

The Defendant, in the name of “C,” is a person operating a waste disposal company, and on April 8, 2015, the Defendant kept in custody for the victim F, a corporation, the representative director of which was requested from “C” located in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, for the damaged company, to dispose of fishing, the sales of which is 258,000 won (a total of 85,140,000 won) and then deducted from the sales of which is equivalent to 330 won.

In this context, he embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Investigation report (in addition to a statement of transaction between F and C, etc.);

1. An origin statement, a patent certificate, a trademark registration certificate, or a design registration certificate;

1. Business registration certificate and license for waste collection and transportation business;

1. Application of each protocol of seizure and list of seized articles, photographs of seized articles and packaging stuffs Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order does not constitute embezzlement, since the defendant and his defense counsel received a request from the injured company for the destruction of damaged goods.

According to the evidence adopted earlier, the damaged company's fishing operation that entrusted the disposal of the disposal to the Defendant was not leaked to the outside as the design was sold during the market. The injured company requested the Defendant to retire all parts of the fishing operation and dispose of them. The injured company sent the employees to the Defendant.

Even if it is confirmed whether the Defendant discard the whole quantity of fishing, it can be recognized that the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, deducted from the Defendant without destroying 330 scambling 330 scams and sold some of them.

According to this, the injured company is not simply discarded the damaged goods to the defendant, but entirely discarded the damaged goods.