A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[2013 Highest 1966] The Defendant is a person who works as a delivery source in the “E”, a Chinese restaurant operated by the victim D in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, and has been engaged in the delivery and collection of food.

On March 25, 2012, around 17:30 on March 25, 2012, the Defendant caused the misunderstanding in the above E, and the Defendant did not return to the Defendant, holding the F, the victim’s possession of KRW 270,000 and the market value of KRW 1,000,000,000,000 in the delivery price.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property on duty.

[2013 Highest 2130] The Defendant was engaged in food delivery and veterinary affairs from the “I restaurant” operated by the victim H in Busan-gun G, Busan-gun as an employee.

On December 7, 2012, in order to deliver food to the victim at around 20:00, the Defendant: (a) laid off the above restaurant with J rapidly equivalent to KRW 1.7 million on the market price owned by the victim; (b) opened the restaurant; and (c) embezzled the food cost of KRW 2.60,000 on the day, without returning it to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court [2013 order 1966] records of evidence of the case;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding D (Evidence No. 3 of the Evidence List)

1. Written statements of D;

1. Records of the report on collection of stolen vehicles [2013 Height2130] case;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. A report on the collection of hydrogen vehicles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on acceptance certificates;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (such as the fact that the defendant reflects his depth in this court, the amount of damage is not significant, and the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are the crimes falling under the category 1 of embezzlement and breach of trust according to the sentencing guidelines, and there are no particular aggravated or mitigated factors, and thus, the scope of sentence in the basic area.