Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 30, 2014, around 17:00 on August 30, 2014, D department stores 2nd E store employees of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, contacted the victim G, who is an employee of the home delivery company, to the arrival of the E store's delivery room in front of the second floor cargo elevator of the above D department store fashion center, and sent the H delivery room to E store by misunderstanding that there are nine female households worth KRW 1 million in the market price as the delivery room of the E store.

Around August 17:30, 2014, the Defendant, with the knowledge of the fact that the said H delivery store was a wrong receipt of the said H delivery store from F, and embezzled the said H delivery store for the victim. Around that time, the Defendant refused to demand the return of the delivery store even if he was requested by the victim for the return of the said store.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel claim that the investigation report (CTV image and photograph attachment) (the determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel) (the Defendant and the defense counsel claim) did not contain any fact that the Defendant received the E store delivery box from F, but did not receive the H store delivery box delivery.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① the H store delivery box, which the F entered “E” among the multiple delivery boxes underground, is mistaken for the E store, ② the F consistently leaves the office from the investigative agency to the court, and consistently leaves the office, and stated that the Defendant had a notice of the fact that the Defendant had a delivery store from F was received from F (the investigative record No. 44 and 45 of the Investigation Record), ③ the Defendant asserted that the E store delivery box was received from F, but the F had already been received from H store delivery box. However, the F had the H store delivery box.