On May 20, 2008, the Defendant received from the injured party the raw and subsidiary materials of clothes equivalent to KRW 7,001,940 at the market price of production of 200 square meters (Z2WC814) at the C plant located in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (Z2WC814) around May 20, the Defendant received from the injured party the raw and subsidiary materials of clothing, such as clothes, such as spaws, spas, and spats, and kept for the injured party by August 28, 2008 as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

On December 16, 2008, when the defendant requested the return of finished products or raw and subsidiary materials from the injured party on or around December 16, 2008, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of them in the Chinese substitute land (hereinafter referred to as 's substitute land') around that time, even though he did not deliver them until September 25, 2008.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant had consistently received clothes from the investigative agency to the instant court from the victim, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not dispose of the clothes completed due to the victim’s lack of payment.

The argument is asserted.

B. 1) In a criminal trial, the establishment of a criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, it may be deemed that the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.