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

From February 2018, the Defendant worked as a representative in the name of “D”, a mobile phone sales store in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, and actually managed the said store, and was in charge of the sales and management of the mobile phone at the said store.

On March 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract on the consignment sale of the victim PSW marketing and the victim LPP Co., Ltd. and the mobile phone sales with the Defendant, respectively, from that time to that time, provided a cell phone from the victims and sold it to the customers.

On March 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) supplied 8 mobile phones with a total market price of 9,986,900 from the Victim P&P marketing corporation; (b) sold 1,056,000 mobile phones from the victim L/C flus; and (c) sold the relevant mobile phone and intended to consume the price thereof while keeping it for business purposes; and (d) embezzled the said 9 mobile phone by arbitrarily selling the said 6 million mobile phone to E, a purchaser of the said mobile phone in the vicinity of the Seo-gu SP, Seo-gu, SP around 23:30 on March 16, 2018. < Amended by Act No. 15306, Mar. 23, 2018; Act No. 15094, Mar. 30, 2018>

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against F and E;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. A report on investigation (a report on details of entry into and departure from an generated place);

1. A seizure list;

1. A list of damaged articles;

1. Two copies of a contract for entrustment of business;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The amount of damage suffered by the victims of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order is not substantial;

However, the defendant recognizes his wrongness.

Out of the mobile phone purchase price, the defendant was kept.

2.8 million won was seized by the investigative agency.

Defendant.