On September 15, 2017, the Defendant transferred the original processing factory in Yangju-si B, which he operated, to the victim C, and is a person in charge of the original inspection, inventory management, personnel management, etc. by holding the office of the management department in the above factory.

피고인은 2018. 1. 27.경부터 2018. 8. 4.경까지 위 공장에서, 별지 범죄일람표(1) 기재와 같이 총 25회에 걸쳐 아이티와이 싱글스판 모스크램 1,008야드 등 별지 범죄일람표(2) 기재와 같은 원단 23종 시가 합계 140,914,974원 상당을 땡처리 업자인 D에게 처분한 후 이를 생활비 등 개인적인 용도에 임의 소비하여 횡령하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of C and D among the interrogation records of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A list of damaged goods in inventory;

1. Detailed details of the list of damaged articles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of passbook No. 4;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (contributing to imprisonment), [the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court] The basic area (1-3 years) of Type 2 (not less than KRW 100,00 but less than KRW 50,00) of the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust (a decision of sentencing] [the decision of sentence] the defendant repeatedly disposes of large amount of original parts through the use of victim’s trust and

The nature of the crime is not good and most of the victims have not been recovered.

Accordingly, the victim is complaining for a strict punishment against the defendant.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime, that the defendant's profit acquired by the actual crime is less than the amount indicated in the facts charged because he disposed of the damaged goods to salt prices, that the defendant supports the families whose health status is not good, and that the defendant has no significant criminal record related to the crime of this case.