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.

around June 2016, Defendant, Victim C, and Victim D decided to operate a business in which main equipment was sold, and purchased 98, 60, and 60 Doma by investing their own funds, and agreed to divide profits from deducting expenses, etc. if sold, and the purchased main equipment was kept in the leased warehouse by the Defendant on the Fri-gu E and the second floor of Busan.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant kept the same business property equivalent to KRW 12,217,00 in the warehouse for the victims, including 30 knifes (380,000 won per opening day), 18 knife (19,000 won per opening day), and 25 knife (19,000 won per opening day), which remains after selling the goods at around 16:00 of the same day from 16:0 to 23:40 of the same day, and rejected the return of the goods without justifiable reasons even after receiving a request from the victims for the return of the goods.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned jointly with the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statements of the witness C and D;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement C or D concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the police against the accused;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel agreed that the defendant dispose of and proceeds from inventory goods of the instant state flag, knife, knife, and knife around July 6, 2016, and the defendant disposed of and agreed to proceeds from the sale of inventory goods of the instant state flag, knife, and knife. Thus, the defendant's act with inventory goods of the instant state flag, knife, and knife does not constitute embezzlement.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the following circumstances, the inventory of the instant case purchased funds from the victims, and the Defendant written a large amount of money for operating the same business:

One of the arguments is that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and otherwise the victims have stored the inventory goods of this case.