A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates E with the seal of steel structure in Kimpo-si D, and for about nine days from October 19, 2012 to December 1, 201 of the same year, approximately 268 tons of H beamline, which is a building material, from victim F, written indictment from the victim F, the Defendant stated the sn beamline amounting to 280 tons and the value of which is about 270 million won.

However, according to the witness F’s statement in the 8th trial record and the police statement in G, the sn beamline received by the defendant from the victim F is 268 tons, and the defendant embezzled the sn beam of 260 tons other than 11 sn beam of the 8 tons among them, and the value of the sn beam embezzled is about 260 million won (one million won per ton x 260 tons), so it can be acknowledged that the sn beam of the defendant embezzled is about 260 million won (one ton x 260 tons). Thus, the quantity and value of the h beamline embezzled by the defendant is recognized as identical to the above criminal facts.

On November 2013, 2013, after being requested to seal B and while keeping it on duty, H provided H with a security for the Defendant’s obligation, and embezzled approximately KRW 260,000,000 of the market price as a security for the Defendant’s obligation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the nine-time trial records;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A complaint;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the investigation report (the sloping beam owner G and the currency)

1. The Defendant’s assertion was kept in custody of the H beam beam with the seal request from F, and only left the H beamline with the Defendant’s right to compulsory execution from the creditors, and did not provide H with the H beam for the security of the Defendant’s obligation to H.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to obtain the sloping beam illegally.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant’s assertion against H.