2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) sold goods with the trademark called “D” entrusted by the victim C and the victim; and (b) sold the remainder after subtracting sales commission equivalent to 30% of the monthly sales amount from the monthly sales commission; (c) made an agency contract with the victim twice a month [by no later than the 20th day of the current month; (d) the sales portion by no later than the 16th day or the end of the following month (hereinafter “D sales portion”) by no later than the 5th day of the following month; (d) the sales portion by no later than the 18,940,212 for the sales portion on December 12, 2012, while operating the “D” agency at two weeks, he/she embezzled the sales amount of KRW 18,940,212 for the sales portion on the said store, etc. at his/her own discretion, labor cost, and labor cost; and (d) embezzled the sales amount of KRW 3638,1963,2846.20,287,28

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Agency contract;

1. The agency settlement status [The agency contract of this case entered into by the defendant and the injured party is that the defendant sells the injured party's products, and the injured party pays sales commission to the injured party, and the ownership of the goods until the goods are sold or paid are attributed to the injured party, so it is recognized as a consignment contract, and it does not interfere with the above recognition that the sales tax invoice corresponding to the total value of the goods supplied to the defendant has been issued, or that the defendant has the duty to inspect and notify defects in the contract. Therefore, the arbitrary consumption of the sales proceeds of the goods supplied to the defendant under the consignment contract constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do100, Jun. 24, 1986)

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense;