Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From May 1, 2017, the Defendant provided the victims E, the victims E, the victims F, the store deposit of KRW 8 million in the name of the store, KRW 1 million in the jun city, part of the jun city, and the care for management of juice-related house and store management. The Defendant provided some interior expenses, management of juice-related house and store management on the condition that the Defendant and the victims share 1/3 in partnership with the victims, and the Defendant and the victims share overall management of D’s business and store management.

The Defendant, from around that time, kept one oper, one oper, and two mixings in the “D” store, and sold at will to the purchaser of the bread, while the light name is unknown on September 15, 2017.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled 10,000 won in total and 5,400,000 won in the market value of 7.5 million won in the market value, which is the victims’ possession, and 12,90,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendant in the suspect interrogation protocol (including the statement of the E and F);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In order to terminate the business relationship with the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the circumstance where the Defendant sold the instant goods without consultation with the victims as to whether to sell or sell the instant goods under the circumstances in which the Defendant did not clearly arrange the settlement with the victims.

However, while the victims intend to terminate the partnership relationship with the defendant, they endeavor to conduct the old procedure for the settlement of the above goods until the sale of the goods of this case.