Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On March 2016, the Defendant acquired one LG interview 3 smartphones equivalent to KRW 800,000, which was lost in the market price while the Defendant was operating the Defendant’s E-si around Daegu-gu and the Donart.

Defendant 1 did not take necessary procedures such as returning the above acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer in relation to G or H;

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

1. Protocols of seizure (H), list of seizure (Evidence 1 to 5);

1. Application of investigation reports (specific matters on the personal information of the other taxi in transactions) and statutes on comprehensive details of vehicles;

1. Relevant Article 360 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;