However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From June 16, 2015, the Defendant worked as the D occupation place of the Victim C Co., Ltd. from around June 16, 2015, and was in charge of store management, sales, etc.

On August 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sold cash to customers while being entrusted with the verbal sale of the victim’s oral sale; and (b) did not register the fact that the transaction was made, using the fact that the victim did not know that the transaction was made; (c) sold the cash to customers; (d) sold the cash to them; and (e) sold the cash to them; and (e) arbitrarily sold the cash amount of KRW 4,300,00 in a manner that did not register the fact that the transaction was made; and (e) arbitrarily sold the cash amount of KRW 1

In addition, from that time until July 20, 2016, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of a total of KRW 57,548,000, and used the amount individually.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a transaction contract, an inspection of inventory, an agreement on transaction, and a letter of undertaking to compensate for losses;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60 (3) of the Juvenile Act, Article 60 of the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Services Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment] Class 1 (100 million won or less) [the person who has been specially mitigated] [the decision of sentence] or significant damage has been restored [the decision of sentence] unfavorable circumstances: the defendant has embezzled the defendant's trust in the victim and embezzled the articles entrusted for sale; the crime is not good; the frequency of embezzlement and the number of damaged articles is considerably high: the circumstances that recognize and reflect the crime; the actual amount of damage is less than the amount specified in the crime; the agreement with the victim; the same crime is the same.