However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant was a person who has run a mobile phone wholesale retail business with the trade name from the original US-gu B in Gyeonggi-do, and the victim D corporation is a company that runs a wholesale and retail business of telecommunications equipment.

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a consignment contract under which the Defendant was supplied with and sold a mobile phone, etc. by the victim company; and (b) concluded with the victim company to receive the commission fee; and (c) had the cell phone supplied it from the victim company; and (d) had the cell phone stored it for the victim company; and (c) had the intent to embezzled it by selling it to the mobile phone operator

Accordingly, the Defendant, around October 31, 2017, supplied 1,142,90 Aphone 8 (256G) equivalent to 1,142,90 won at the above sales store to the victim company and embezzled the mobile phone of 35,249,50 won in total over 33 times by October 10, 2018, such as selling at will to the middle and high cell phone service provider and embezzlement of it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transactions, such as the details of embezzled mobile phone transactions, business entrustment contract, copies of passbooks, business registration certificate, performance guarantee insurance policy, etc.;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In full view of the circumstances following the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and methods of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the same sentence as the order shall be determined.

Unfavorable circumstances: The fact that the defendant has not been embezzled, the fact that the defendant has not been able to take advantage of the victim, or the restoration of the damage is proper.