However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the business of selling goods and collecting money at the E convenience store of the victim D(39 years of age) located in Suwon-si C from January 2009 to May 201.

The Defendant, within the above convenience store around December 28, 2010, kept the sales proceeds of KRW 10,000,000 for goods for business purposes. around that time, the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of KRW 32,80,000 by arbitrarily consuming the total amount of KRW 32,80,000 through five times, as indicated in the crime list, from around that time to February 24, 201, by consuming the daily consumption of KRW 32,80,000, in total, in accordance with the following method.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning specification of transactions;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the first crime and the first agreement with the victim) in the suspension of execution;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act asserts that since the defendant agreed to pay part of the defendant's direct convenience store to the victim, it is merely simple default and is not in the position of keeping the money for

If the settlement of profit-and-loss distribution between partners is not made, there is no right of a partner to dispose of the property belonging to the partnership of the partners at his own discretion, and if a partner has embezzled the property of the partnership at his own discretion during the custody of the property, embezzlement is established as to the whole amount used at his own discretion regardless of the ratio of shares (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14263 Decided December 23, 2010). According to the records of this case, the defendant and the victim can recognize the fact that they operated the convenience store of this case as a partnership business, and the defendant used the sales proceeds without the victim's permission, embezzlement is established.