On November 2010, the Defendant transferred to the above E all rights related to the above restaurant, such as the right to operate the restaurant and deposit money, business facilities, etc., which are the property of the business, under the name of the Defendant’s personal debt repayment to E, and embezzled it.

2. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case includes the witness D’s statutory and police officers, statements in the prosecution, F, G, and H’s written statements.

Each statement of F, G, and H was made by the statement that the Defendant became aware of the disposal of C without D’s consent on November 2010, and it is difficult to view it as a direct evidence to support the facts charged in this case because there was no content about how the above person became aware of the fact in the circumstances. Ultimately, it is difficult to view it as a direct evidence to support the facts charged in this case. Accordingly, it is examined as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

D In the police, the defendant did not speak about the facts related to him before transferring C cafeteria to E, and indirectly heard through the staff employed in C.

After that, the prosecutor made a statement and maintained the above statement in the process of investigation.

However, D reversed its statements in this court with the following contents:

- I, an employee of C, who calls with D and continues to take part in the phone, listened to the fact that I unilaterally notified D to the effect that he is a business operator, and D transfers the above restaurant to the Defendant.