A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

around August 4, 2014, the Defendant transferred all of the inventory goods to the victim F in the “E store” store operated by the Defendant of the Defendant of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor to sell them in a store organization, and thereafter subleted the said store from September 21, 2014, and received from the victim the key to the store from the victim upon expiration of the sublet period.

The Defendant arbitrarily released clothes, such as clothes, which may be the victim's market price, from the above store to the warehouse, etc. located in the Hanam-si G around September 27, 2014 while the Defendant kept the clothing goods (the cost equivalent to KRW 69,743,890 claimed by the victim) for the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the victim's reproduction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The entry of the F in part of the prosecutor's statement by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Some of the statements of H and I;

1. A description of the sale of goods, a list of entrusted inventory, and a list of stock in company; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to contracts, recording notes, and text messages;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Sentencing Criteria [Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (100 million won) basic area (4 months to 1 year and 4 months) (special person]; and

2. 선고형의 결정 비록 피해자와 합의된 바 없으나, 다만 이 사건 피해액은 앞서 기재한 바와 같이 불상액이고 피해자가 주장하는 피해 금액이 원가 69,743,890원 가량이나 재고정리를 위하여 판매하는 이른바 ‘땡처리’ 상품의 판매 마진이 50%에 이른다고 쉽게 단정하기 어렵고(증인 J도 피해자가 당초 피고인으로부터 인수한 물건의 원가는 실 판매액과 동일하고 제3자로부터 추가매입한 물건의 원가는 실 판매액의 70% 정도라고 증언하였음) 동 피고인과 피해자의 2014. 9. 23.자 통화내용 녹취록,...