If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On October 26, 2019, the Defendant: “22,00 won” as stated in the second sentence of the indictment of KRW 222,00,00 in the name of the victim C in the name of the victim C was subscribed to one of the mobile phones (three model LM-Y110S/D) which is deemed to be clerical error in the name of the victim C; however, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, was in custody of the above mobile phone without returning it to the victim; thus, the Defendant embezzled one of the mobile phones equivalent to KRW 220,00,000 by arbitrarily disposing of the said mobile phone without returning it to the victim; thereby, the Defendant embezzled the same.

1. A copy of each new contract for each mobile telephone (for sign-up and computer entry) entered in the statement that conforms to the facts set forth in C among the two-time police interrogation protocol against the accused: “F telephone investigation by a person in charge of illegal use in the E” and “G party confirmation”

1. The complainant's cell phone photograph [the defendant and the defense counsel purchased this new terminal (a model name: LM-Y110S, serial number: D) but requested to exchange the same device (LG-T480 model) as the previous one because it is difficult to use the device, and the defendant was in custody.

LG-T480 public announcement (air) has changed to the end of the end of the terminal that C used only to install the key board of the existing device used by C, exchange it to C, and compensate the victim for the increased amount of the telecommunications fee, thereby not constituting embezzlement.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim C was found to be a device produced on December 8, 2015, “the date of the new contract for mobile phones ( October 26, 2019) in the holding that the victim C would end up with LG-T480 short term in use (see, e.g., evidence records 104 pages), which was 4 years before December 8, 2015 (see, e.g., evidence records 104 photographs), and if the victim’s request was changed to the same type as the existing device, as the defendant’s assertion, the new subscription contract should be revoked.