When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a Korean national outside the Republic of Korea, who operates D in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City.

The defendant from around 09:00 on January 1, 2016 to the same year.

5. 15:00 F parking lots in Gyeonggi-gun E, in which the place was tent;

G In order to hold a public performance, approximately 10,00 won of the market price of the victim MM Group, Inc., Ltd., which was leased and brought about by the victim MM Group, was kept in custody for the above event, it was loaded on the truck, transferred it to the Macheme located in Pyeongtaek-gun, and then embezzled it after disposing of it as a living expense in mind.

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness I and each legal statement of the J;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Termination of the G performance management contract;

1. Postal event contract (i.e., November 23, 2015) and event contract (i.e., December 23, 2015);

1. The transaction specification statement, transaction details, letters, business registration certificate (the defendant and his defense counsel recognized that the land of this case was donated to the defendant and disposed of it, so they did not have the status of a person who keeps the property and did not have any intent to acquire illegal profits.

The argument is asserted.

In the crime of embezzlement, the term "the custody of property" means the state of actual or legal control over the property and the custody thereof must be based on the consignment relationship. However, it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as lending and borrowing of use, lease, delegation, etc., and may also be established according to administrative management, customs, cooking, good faith, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3840, Sept. 23, 2003; 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 2011). The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, i.e., ① the victim company concluded a performance contract with the Defendant with respect to the execution contract within G around November 23, 2015.