The defendant pays 24 million won to the applicant for the embezzlement.

On February 23, 2010, the Defendant was requested to sell 30 copies of the C C's C's C's C's C's C's C's C's C's C's C's C'.

The Defendant, while selling 30 copies of the Charnel Charnel’s Charnel’s Charnel’s Certificate for the victims and keeping the proceeds from the sale of the Charnel’s Charnel’s Certificate for the victims, embezzled by refusing to return the certificate even when the Defendant requested the victims to return KRW 24 million. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27799, Oct. 14, 2016>

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an application for change of the name of a trade contract, copy of a furnal certificate, power of attorney, and certificate within a furnal;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Articles 25 (1) and 31 (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit for Compensation and Sentence of Provisional Execution;

1. The basic area (from April to January 4) of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] Category 1 (the period of less than KRW 100 million) is nonexistent;

1. In light of various sentencing factors such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that the content of the crime subject to the determination of sentence and the degree of damage therefrom; (b) the Defendant’s disposal of the custody certificate from the investigation process to the instant court did not fit in front and rear; and (c) the Defendant’s assertion that it was not consistent with the front and rear, but did not make any effort to recover damage; and (d) the Defendant has been punished for committing a crime identical to the instant case.