From August 20, 2009 to March 18, 2016, the Defendant is a person who works as a store manager of a trade name and has been engaged in the consignment sale and store management of female clothing, etc. while working as a store manager of a trade name.

In the course of operating the clothing store as above, when the sales have decreased and the financial situation has deteriorated, the defendant raised the sales performance by arbitrarily paying the clothing, etc. which was in custody on commission of sale from the victim company. On June 5, 2015, the defendant sold the goods to the buyers at the above store, and made an additional payment of 716,000 won at the market price equivalent to 30% of the sales amount.

The Defendant, including that, from the above day to March 18, 2016, disposed of the clothes, shoess, etc. equivalent to the total market value of KRW 238,288,000 in the same manner via the same 319 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect by the prosecution against the accused, and a protocol concerning the interrogation of the police;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. The filing of a complaint, written confirmation, and certification of contents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to contracts for entrusted operation of stores in department stores, contracts for sales floor takeovers, and current status of sales floor inventory inspection;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (selected of imprisonment) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] Type 2 (not less than 100 million won but less than 500 million won) basic area (not less than one year to 3 years) (no special sentencing person);

2. Sentencing as ordered in consideration of the motive and background of the crime indicated in the decision of the sentence, the fact that the damage was not recovered after the crime, the fact that the defendant escaped after the prosecution, the defendant was the first offender who has no record of the crime, the age and career of the defendant, etc.