The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. From the first half of the year 2016, the Defendant, at the place of business located in the 1st underground of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, received a bank for which some production was completed from the victim D and embezzled work and obtained the official approval therefrom. On January 2017, the Defendant embezzled the above handbag and subsidiary materials by refusing to return them on the ground that the damaged person requested another work operator, other than the Defendant, on the ground that he/she requested the return of handbags and subsidiary materials, which amount to the total market value of KRW 108,802,000, the market value of which was being kept at the custody upon request from the injured person, was at the expense of the injured person.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's defense counsel and the defendant's defense counsel did not return the facts charged because they did not receive the defendant's request for work from the injured party, and they did not intend to acquire illegal profits.

c) a change;

B. In a specific criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, the determination should be made in the interest of the defendant even if he/she was suspected of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014). According to the health stand in the instant case, according to various evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim is a business operator who sells handbag, and the defendant is a business operator who processes handbag semi-finished semi-finished products as a finished product. The victim requested the defendant to process handbag from the first half of the first half of 2016, and the victim and the defendant made oral consultation with the defendant about matters, such as public decision and storage of products, and re-contributed transaction conditions, such as public order.