Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On April 11, 2013, the Defendant, at the E office located in 101, Sinpo City D Building No. 101 on April 11, 2013, embezzled the above gold-type with a view to securing the accumulated loss and funds necessary for the operation of the company (such as a model name HG13MY AVN) from the victim F Co., Ltd. for the manufacture of automobile parts, a gold-type ( model name 14MY AVN), a total of 12 vehicles (market price amounting to KRW 70 million) at the request of repair from the victim F Co., Ltd., and embezzled the above gold-type for the purpose of securing the accumulated loss and funds necessary for the operation of the company (market price).

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the prosecutor's statement to G and H;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Optional fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defense counsel's assertion on the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the defendant refused to return a punishment by exercising commercial lien, it does not constitute an element of embezzlement. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant does not exercise commercial lien in order to secure the defendant's claim against the victim, but the defendant's possession of a gold punishment is not a exercise of commercial lien, but the defendant refused to return the penalty under the intention of allowing the victim to pay the overdue wages, etc. instead of the overdue wages, etc., so the above argument is rejected.