beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
In August 2015, the Defendant jointly operated the sales store of automobile goods E with the victim C and the victim D in Busan, the Busan, and the victim supplied automobile goods, etc. and managed the above sales store, such as selling goods, receiving fees, and fund management, but the Defendant agreed to operate the business on the condition that the profits are distributed 50% each.
On November 25, 2015, the Defendant embezzled KRW 23,520,00,00 in total on 26 occasions from around that time to December 2016, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form, while receiving KRW 750,00 from the customer F to the Busan Bank account in his/her name, and being kept in his/her business with the money for goods, such as Snishing expenses, etc., from the customer in the above E, he/she arbitrarily used the money for living expenses, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police against C;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (the submission of a ledger of transactions and receipts by company, the submission of details of transactions, and the submission of details of E business operations);
1. Grounds for sentencing of punishment in accordance with Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, and for sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor;
1. Scope of recommending punishment: Type 1 (less than 100 million won) basic area (from April to January 4) (no person who is subject to special sentencing);
2. The criminal defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment in light of the following circumstances:
However, the punishment shall be determined by taking into consideration the anti-sex, the fact that there is no record of the same crime, the family relationship of the defendant, etc.
The crime of this case is an embezzlement of 23,520,000 won in total, which the defendant had kept in custody under the trust relationship with the victim, over 26 times, and is not good for such a crime.
On June 2016, the Defendant continued to commit the crime even though he was demanded by the injured party to discontinue the crime and recover from the damage.
The Defendant did not make any particular effort to recover damage.