The defendant is innocent.

From March 21, 2012 to June 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received 2745 units of a board for construction in an amount equivalent to KRW 39 million from the victim’s assertion that the victim E requested repair work (hereinafter “the instant goods”); and (b) disposed of it in another place due to difficulties of the company around July 2012; and (c) embezzled it.

Judgment

In light of whether the Defendant kept the instant goods for E, the instant goods are substituted for the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that E delegated the Defendant to keep the instant goods for the specific use or purpose. Rather, according to the witness E’s legal statement, the prosecutor’s office and the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the police interrogation protocol against F, and the acceptance certificate, the Defendant requested repair by specifying only the size and quantity of the instant goods whose ownership is not indicated, and the Defendant stored and repaired the instant goods in combination with the instant goods requested by other repair entrusting business operators, and the repaired goods are stored and repaired by mixing them with those requested by the repair entrusting business operators. Accordingly, the instant goods kept by the Defendant are not the goods stored by the other repair entrusting business operators, but the goods stored by the Defendant are not the goods stored separately for the purpose or purpose of the instant goods stored by the other repair entrusting business operators.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the