On August 29, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months at the Suwon District Court for the charge of forging private documents, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2013.

On July 28, 2008, the Defendant received delegation from the Victim C to the criminal agreement with D, and on the same day, he embezzled two copies of the above D’s goods worth KRW 220 million and the KRW 10 million check for the victim on the pretext of criminal agreement from the said D’s real estate operated by the Defendant in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, with the intention of criminal agreement. On July 28, 2008, the Defendant embezzled at will those two copies of the above check to the F, the Defendant’s partner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal testimony made by a witness C and D;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against F and D;

1. A petition filed by C or D;

1. Proxys, certificates of personal seal impression, agreements, or copies of checks;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Criminal history records and personal identification records [the defendant and his defense counsel will find a high-class system that he left to G via F with a check of two million won, so C allowed and sent to G with a view to 35 million won, and obtained C's consent with respect to the above disposition of twenty million won. However, in light of the evidence duly admitted and duly admitted by the court, it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the charge of this case that the defendant used the above 20 million won for personal purposes without permission of C, and thus, it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the charge of this case (the testimony of F to this objection is not believed) (the testimony of F cannot be believed.)

The defendant's above assertion is rejected. The defendant's application of the law is not accepted.

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant for the reason of sentencing in the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes is part of the crime of this case committed in order to benefit personally by taking into account the agreement between two persons, in which the obligation and obligation are linked to one another between bad, D, C and the Defendant, and F.