A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the business of collecting and selling solid art from around 200 to the end of 2010.

On August 20, 2010, the Defendant embezzled the victim C’s house located in the G apartment in the Yangju-si, the Defendant: (a) made an appraisal to the effect that he/she will confirm the value and sell it, and (b) he/she did not return it to the injured party, while he/she received a delivery of one copy of the door and one copy of the fireworks, from the injured party; and (c) he/she did not return it to the injured party on or around the end of 2010 while he/she kept it for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged articles;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

1. From among the facts charged in this case, we examine the part of the charge that the Defendant embezzled while working on commission of the Defendant’s respective 6 million won of the market value from the injured party and 1 point of the fireworks-do self 1 and 1 point of the flowers-do self.

The statement of the victim's opinion (the presumption of the market price of each six million won) submitted by the High Art Appraisal Association to the effect that the above Dogs themselves were 6 million won as evidence of each market value, and that they purchased the above Dogs in each six million won, and that the defendant was also selling the amount (the second police interrogation protocol, but the first investigation was conducted as the complainant).

No such statement was made in the first interrogation protocol of the police.

However, this alone is strictly proven in the criminal trial to the extent of conviction without reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.