Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Criminal facts

On May 2010, the Defendant had the victim keep television, air conditioners, air conditioners, and heating apparatus installed in the guest room of the said telecom in the actual operation of the “EMoel” located in the Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, where the victim C leased around May 2010.

1. From July 2010 to October 2010, the Defendant embezzled ten TV sets of walls owned by the victim in the said telecom without obtaining his/her consent from the victim and embezzled them for a total of at least four million won to the persons incompacting name.

2. On September 201, 201, the Defendant embezzled seven air conditioners, one air conditioners, and one air conditioners, which are owned by the victim at the same place as of September 201, without the consent of the victim, by selling at a total amount of KRW 590,000,000 to the victims of name distress.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness to the F of this Court;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of the accused in the prosecution, and the third police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement of each police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of each real estate lease contract or a copy of the lease contract;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the claim is that the Defendant sold TV and air conditioners, etc. as part of the operation and sale of the “Eel” comprehensively delegated by the victim, and used the price as construction cost for remodeling the said Moel, and there was no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition from the Defendant.

2. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the victim agreed to pay the lessee 20% of the difference as sales commission when leasing “Eel” around May 2010, if the value of the Maurel increases due to the lessee’s operation of the Maurel and the Maurel is sold above the standard amount. Meanwhile, the lessee is also obligated to pay the difference as sales commission.