beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On April 1, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim company B (hereinafter “victim company”) on the terms that the Defendant sold the clothing supplied by the victim company while operating the victim company’s “D” store in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D, and that the Defendant would receive the commission for the sale of clothes from the victim company. From that time until July 12, 2019, the Defendant sold the clothing supplied by the victim company as the manager of the above store and engaged in the management of the sales.
1. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around February 1, 2015, sold one “E”, which is the clothes provided by the victim company to the said store on or around February 24, 2015, to the non-member of the said store; and (b) sold the said sales proceeds to the non-member of the store in cash of KRW 5,000; and (c) used the said proceeds for personal purposes, such as personal debt repayment and living expenses, without entering the said proceeds in a computerized book.
From around that time to July 10, 2019, the Defendant sold a total of 374 clothes supplied by the victim company to the said store in cash in total of 54,591,550 won, and consumed it for the personal use of the victim company for his/her occupational storage.
Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was under custody in the course of business.
2. On August 10, 2018, when the victim company conducted a inventory inspection to identify the inventory in the store, the defendant lent approximately 50 punishments of the victim company's clothes from other "D" stores in order to reduce the sales proceeds of the embezzled clothes as stated in the preceding paragraph, and when the defendant entrusted the defendant's operation, the defendant presumed that the "D" store was a clothes supplied by the victim company, and that the person in charge of the inventory inspection of the victim company's inventory inspection was merely 183 clothes.