The defendant's KRW 355,600 and its amount to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from April 19, 2014 to December 11, 2014, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the refined restaurant with the trade name “D” in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the Defendant is a person who worked for the Plaintiff from August 2003 to December 201 as the Plaintiff’s employee.

B. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 200,000 and the amount of sales for scrap machines and the amount of sales for scrap machines from December 12, 2011 to December 17, 2011, while working as an employee at the Plaintiff’s refined restaurant.

“A summary order of KRW 500,00 (No. 2012 high-level 3130) was issued on the grounds of criminal facts. C. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 (No. 4493, Jun. 20, 201) (a summary order of KRW 2013 high-level 493, Jun. 29, 201) with the fact that “the Defendant embezzled 15,600, while working as an employee in the Plaintiff’s regularly restaurant during the period from October 20 to October 27, 2011.”

The Plaintiff lodged a complaint with the purport that “the Defendant embezzled KRW 63,491,000 from April 30, 2007 to December 20, 2010, while serving as an employee at the Plaintiff’s emotional restaurant.” However, the head of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office within the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office did not impose a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on November 28, 2013.

E. The plaintiff is above D.

On January 10, 2014, the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office filed an appeal against the non-prosecution disposition by the court, and the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office ordered the revision of the order ex officio, and accordingly, the District Prosecutors' Office inside the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition by the defendant on January 21, 2014.

F. On November 28, 2013, E, an acting driver, filed a complaint with the Defendant stating that “The Defendant deceptioned E as if he operated the Plaintiff’s emotional restaurant and embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 8,100,000 of the commission driving commission fee from August 28, 2006 to March 2008.” However, the competent district office in the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office within the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office did not impose a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on November 28, 2013.