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

Defendant

A is a person operating a comprehensive legal reading center. On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a supply and storage contract with the Victim F to the condition that the price for the book was settled after selling the book. The Defendant, on October 7, 2011, unilaterally reversed the contract for the supply of the above book and the contract for the storage of the book, etc., with respect to the book kept after the termination of the contract for the supply of the book and the contract for the storage of the book, thereby refusing to return the original book kept in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City 480, Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City 220,000,000 won without a justifiable reason, even if he received a request from the victimized person for continued return from the damaged person from December 13, 201 to August 22, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Certification of each content:

1. Written reply (the second, right 99 of investigation records);

1. An impossible protocol of decision or protocol of provisional disposition of movable property;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on each judgment;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 355 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order / [Defendant and defense counsel] Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / The defendant and defense counsel did not return the documents of this case because the victim did not pay the storage expenses

The argument is asserted.

“Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Code refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. Thus, in order to constitute embezzlement, the “Refusal to return” refers to an act of embezzlement where the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return the goods, and the act of refusing to return is the same as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal to return and the subjective intent.

The extent to which it can be seen (Supreme Court Decision 203 May 5, 2003).