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

On March 16, 2011, the Defendant entered into an agency transaction agreement with the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) at D stores operated by the Defendant in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si. The main content was that the ownership of clothing, etc. supplied by the victim Co., Ltd. is reserved until sale is sold.

The defendant from April 1, 2011 to the same year

5. Until July, 17, 6,943,845 of the price of clothes supplied by the victim company and sold at the above store, which was kept for the victim company, embezzled by consuming the amount of money for personal use in the Gangseo-si city around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Provisions of the special agreement and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of agency transaction agreement;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do144, Apr

1. The sales price of the clothes sold by the alleged defendant is owned by the defendant, and even if it was not paid in, it is merely a default of civil law, and the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the following facts are recognized.

The defendant entered into an agreement with the victim company on the sales of clothes with the victim company, and the main contents of the agreement are to deposit the remainder other than 35% of the sales of clothes supplied by the victim company into the victim company, and the ownership of clothes supplied and kept by the victim company is reserved to the victim company until sale

In addition, the defendant is a transaction deposit.