A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A. Defendant 1) Of the embezzlement of clothing sales proceeds in the judgment of the court below that found the part of the embezzlement of KRW 4,518,750 in the crime sight list 3,00 in the judgment of the court below, but the remaining part of the embezzlement of KRW 206,861,150 in the aggregate cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant embezzled goods equivalent to the above amount because it was erroneous in the method of determining the goods embezzled by the Defendant. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges of this part of the crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. The part of the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges of this part of the crime charged was erroneous. The embezzlement of KRW 103,791,30 in the aggregate of the embezzlement of the consigned goods listed in the crime sight list 1: the embezzlement of this part was combined with the records of the victim’s sale and the sale in the computer

A) Although it was determined by the method of identifying that the Defendant embezzled the goods not discovered from the date of actual sale, the electronic records on the day may be omitted because the Defendant was even engaged in the computerized input after the date of actual sale, and rather, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F head office”) around January 2014.

() According to the result of the settlement of opportonization agreed with the victim with respect to the goods in spring, the goods destroyed at the store in this case among the goods remaining in stock on the computer record are limited to the total amount of 42,725,00 won (the supply price was 15,654,252 won) and even if the goods were destroyed at the store in this case according to the aforementioned settlement method, there may be cases where the said goods were stolen or embezzled by other employees than the defendant, and where the goods were transported to other stores and the electronic data processing was omitted simply while moving to the store, so it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant embezzled all of the embezzled goods in this part.