A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

From May 201 to February 9, 2013, the Defendant had been engaged in the business of selling clothes while working in the “E” store located in the Heung-gu Seoul building located in the Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On November 2012, the Defendant: (a) sold clothing to the customer F (the “G” stated in the indictment is a clerical error; (b) and kept 1.1 million won in custody for the victim; (c) around that time, he/she arbitrarily used KRW 8.4 billion in the above store to repay the Defendant’s debt.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol of examination of witness of H, other than the date for deliberation (including a record which is part of the protocol);

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning H;

1. Part of the first police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. The defendant's partial statement and entry of H and D in the second police interrogation protocol (Evidence List No. 8) against the defendant, each statement of the defendant, and the police statement of D in the second police interrogation protocol (Evidence List No. 8);

1. A document certifying the preparation of the F;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of computerized data on storage and sale), investigation reports (Attachment of card sales slips), investigation reports (Attachment of card sales slips), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of card sales certificates);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. He/she has an intention to return, compensate or preserve after the conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition in the crime of embezzlement, it is not necessary to deduct the amount of compensation or preservation after the fact from the amount of embezzlement.

In addition, if the custodian fails to present documentary evidence of the use of the money and fails to give reasonable explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal and the use of the money, this amount is to withdraw the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and use it for personal purposes.