Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates C in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu.

1. On May 11, 2018, the Defendant acquired 800,000 won of Samsung Gallona7, which was owned by the victim D at the above location, through an employee, at a so-called Samsung Gallon, the market value of which is equivalent to the 800,000 won.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. On May 2018, the Defendant acquired the 800,000 won of the market value of the female owned by the victim E at the above place, which was transferred through one staff member of Samsung Gallon, in which the victim E lost.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of damage E and D;

1. A report on intelligence investigation and a report on investigation (a document containing letters written between a suspect and a stolen business operator shall be attached);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Relevant Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The person who acquired each of the instant mobile phones was an employee and the defendant was not aware of the method of returning the mobile phone to the lost party and was not returned immediately. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement of stolen objects.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, and the defendant is presumed to have lost the customer.