The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person who actually operates a delivery agency business entity called “D” in the Simsan-si. The Defendant was engaged in the business of delivering the products manufactured by the injured company from February 2, 2010 to March 2014 to E and F, which are customers of the victimized company, while keeping the products manufactured by the injured company from the injured company. The Defendant received the prices from the injured company every month.

While the Defendant kept goods received from the victimized company from around September 2013 to March 2014 for business purposes, on March 2014, the Defendant refused to return the total film 67,649 (total amount of KRW 41 items, total market value of KRW 163,31,593) as shown in attached Table 2-1 and 2-2, the Defendant, who came to know that the Defendant had falsely reported the delivery details by submitting the supply list in the name of employees belonging to F to the purport that “the Defendant received the goods manufactured by the victimized company” voluntarily prepared by the Defendant to the victimized company.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Determination

A. “Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act means an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods.

B. According to the witness G’s legal statement, inventory inspection report, and performance memorandum, the Defendant’s inventory inspection was conducted on February 23, 2014 by comparing the inventory with the actual inventory on the account book with G, a staff member of the victimized company, around February 23, 2014. On March 3, 2014, at the request of the victimized company, the Defendant made a decision to compensate for the shortage of inventory (132,654,53 won) within one month, and if the goods are found in short of inventory, the Defendant entered in the investigation report (434 pages) alone.