1. The Defendant, who was engaged in the wholesale and retail business around 2010, was a person who was engaged in the wholesale and retail business. At the time, it was difficult for the Defendant to pay shop rents and wages due to the depression of domestic games at the time. While promoting the domestic-type brand business in China, the Defendant, who experienced financial difficulties in investing the amount of KRW 50,000,000 in the domestic-type brand business, sold a pactic test which was kept by requesting sale from another wholesale and retailer and sold the proceeds to use the proceeds as business funds.

On May 8, 2010, the Defendant was requested to sell the amount equivalent to KRW 4,420,000 in the 221 market price MM around 221, on the ground that the Defendant offered that “the Defendant would sell the goods to the victim C at a price higher than the value of supply at the time of leaving the goods, and would make payments after excluding the difference at a price higher than the value of supply at the time of leaving the goods.”

While the Defendant kept the above goods on behalf of the victim, the Defendant embezzled another’s property worth KRW 76,180,000 in total five times from that time until February 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including selling the said goods to wholesalers and retailers in name, and arbitrarily using the price for supply of Ansan Tech and payment of wages to employees.

2. The Defendant, as seen above, was unable to pay the store rent and salary due to a sudden increase in sales due to the depression of domestic games. The Defendant invested an amount equivalent to KRW 50,00,000 in a domestic brand business in China, but failed to recover the amount. In that process, the Defendant was unable to use and repay the price of the goods equivalent to KRW 76,180,000 in money arbitrarily, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the said amount with others even if having borrowed money.

Nevertheless, around November 2012, the Defendant: (a) was urgently required to engage in the Do and retail business to the victim D at a coffee shop in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul; (b) and (c) interest rate is 1.5 million after the month when the Defendant lent it.