Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On July 2, 2018, the Defendant found 7,00 won in cash, one resident registration certificate, two physical cards, and one lot store card card card, etc. in the market value, which includes the following: (a) on July 2, 2018, at the bus stops in front of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Seocheon-gu, 1373, and (b) the victim B (the victim) was lost.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Relevant Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant was the victim’s grandchildren, but only for reporting to the police station, there was no intention or intention of unlawful acquisition of the stolen property embezzlement.

2. Determination

A. The crime of embezzlement of stolen property by possession of relevant legal principles is a crime completed by the acquisition of stolen property, etc. with the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel no reasonable doubt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997; 2004Do8154, Jan. 27, 2005). In addition, “Refusal to return” in the crime of embezzlement refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods, and thus, “Refusal to return” refers to the act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right.