2013 Highest 2130 (Consolidation) Occupational embezzlement

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

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

【2013 Highest 1966】

The defendant is a person who has served as a delivery source from 000's Chinese restaurant, which is a Chinese restaurant in the operation of the victim B in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si and has been engaged in the delivery and collection of food.

On March 25, 2012: around 30:30, the Defendant 270,000, and the Defendant 1,000,000 won, which was paid in the delivery, did not return to the Defendant, with a color Ma000,000 of the North Korean ports owned by the victim at KRW 2,70,000 and the market value of KRW 1 million.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property on duty.

【2013 Highest 2130】

The defendant was engaged in food delivery and collection business from 000's to 000'' operated by the victim C in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and was engaged in food delivery and collection business.

On December 7, 2012, 200: (a) the Defendant, in order to deliver food to the victim at around 00: (b) was engaged in the above restaurant with 1.7 million won (1.7 million won (1.7 million won) of the market price owned by the Defendant, boarding the above restaurant, and going through the above restaurant, and without returning 2.6 million won of the food price collected on the day, the Defendant arbitrarily embezzled it to the victim, without returning it to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

[2013 Highest 1966] Evidence records

1. Statement of Police Statement on B (Evidence No. 3 of Evidence List)

1. A written statement under B;

1. Reporting on recovery of stolen vehicles;

[2013 Highest 2130] Evidence records

1. Protocol of police statement concerning C;

1. A report on the collection of running vehicles;

1. Certificates of underwriting;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Apr.

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

The above crime is an offense falling under Category 1 of the Sentencing and the crime of breach of trust in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, and does not seem to have any particular aggravated or mitigated element. Thus, the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of sentence, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the trial and records of this case, within the scope of sentence in the basic area

On the other hand, the reasons for suspending the execution of a sentence are as shown above (the reasons for suspending the execution of a sentence are as follows: (The reason for suspending the execution of a sentence is that there is a "unagreement" due to the main reason for refusing the suspension of execution according to the sentencing guidelines, and where the amount of substantial damage is considerably small" due to the main reason of pride, it is applicable to the case where

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.