A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has operated a warehouse business for the storage of agricultural products under the trade name of F in Seosan-si E.

On June 20, 2014, the Defendant received a request from the victim G to keep 154,110 km at a large amount of KRW 3822,00,000 at the market price from the victim G, and made it stored in the said F warehouse.

While the Defendant was in custody of the above rings for the victim, the Defendant carried out 60,000 g from the above F warehouse to December 15, 2014, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 120,000,000, several times, and sold it to a third party at his/her own discretion.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investigation report (report on forwarding of details of compensation to victims for insurance);

1. Application of statutes, such as a letter;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] Class 2 (10 million won to be more than 50 million won) [the person who has been specially mitigated] mitigated (6 months to 2 years] [the person who has been specially mitigated], or the case where significant damage has been restored [the decision of sentencing] arbitrarily disposed of the number of victims being kept in custody in return for consideration while the defendant operating the warehouse business; the fact that the defendant embezzled the total amount of 120 million won in total is disadvantageous to the defendant; the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim; the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime or that there was no previous conviction sentenced to more severe punishment than a fine is favorable to the defendant

In addition to the above circumstances, the sentence like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case.