A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On February 8, 2018, the Defendant appealed to the Busan District Court for one year from punishment of embezzlement, etc. and is still pending in the appellate trial.

[2] On April 25, 2014, the Defendant received the payment of KRW 38.5 million to the injured party C and the successful bidder, and subsequently transferred to the injured party the right to return KRW 51 million out of the lease deposit amount to be returned by the lessor at the time of termination of the lease agreement with the head of the city where the Defendant was residing, as security for KRW 51 million, to be paid in the future.

Since June 1, 2015, upon the termination of the above lease contract in the above apartment complex, the Defendant used the amount equivalent to KRW 40 million remaining after the reduction of deposit due to monthly rent from E and F, a lessor, for the victim, instead of delivering it to the victim, and used it for personal purposes, such as repayment of other debts and living expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of some of the police officers against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. C Complaints;

1. Investigation report (F telephone conversations) and investigation report (to hear oral statements on E telephone);

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on apartment monthly rent contract, copy of the debt repayment contract process document, copy of the notice of assignment of claims, contents certificate, and defense counsel's assertion that embezzlement is not likely to be established because the defendant has received the consent of the victim C, and thus the deposit is returned

Therefore, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant can be found to have received the return of the deposit from the victim's future lease, and the testimony of the witness G alone is insufficient to reverse this.