The defendant shall be innocent.

On August 26, 2012, the Defendant, along with the Victim C (hereinafter “victim”), had the victim bear 50% of their respective investments, had the Defendant take over the “slick Factory” equipment and the right of lease in Geum-gu, Geum-gu, the People’s Republic of China’s Republic of China employed the above E, and had him produce bricks in the above factory, and carried them into Korea and sold, but the Defendant had half of the expenses incurred, and the Defendant agreed to operate the above brick factory as a Dong business by means of receiving bricks produced through mutual consultation or settling accounts with the sales proceeds whenever necessary.

Accordingly, from August 26, 2012 to July 31, 2013, the Defendant and the victim spent the expenses for acquiring and operating the above factory in an amount equivalent to KRW 138 million per each party under the aforementioned business agreement and operated the above factory. On June 9, 2013, the Defendant had the above E bring about 40,320 of the bricks produced in the above brick plant in Korea under the said business agreement, and had the said E carry them into the Republic of Korea, and was in custody of the victim, he sold them arbitrarily at an irregular place and consumed the sales proceeds.

In addition, the Defendant from June 9, 2013, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

8. Until February 2, 198, a total market value of KRW 52,917,570 (hereinafter “the instant brick”) worth KRW 392,00 (hereinafter “the instant brick”) that was kept in custody for the victim by the said method was consumed at will at that time and embezzled.

Judgment

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion terminated the relationship with the victim by expressing his/her intent to terminate the relationship with the victim on June 3, 2013, and the relationship with the victim was terminated. Some of the instant barriers were imported from other sellers in China through E, and thus, they were not in the status of a custodian of another’s property, and even if they were in the status of the custodian, the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition is considered in light of various circumstances.