beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, from October 24, 2016 to November 7, 2016, worked as an employee at the “D” mobile phone sales store operated by the Seoul Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim C, and was engaged in mobile phone sales business. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution on August 26, 2016, and was sentenced to the suspension of the execution on February 26, 2016.
1. On October 29, 2016, at around 19:08, the Defendant: (a) had a total of KRW 1,672,00 in the gallon market value of the injured party’s small cellphones kept on duty for the victim; and (b) around that time, he/she arbitrarily sold and embezzled it to a mobile phone purchaser who was in an unsound name.
2. On November 1, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 1,716,00,000 in total at the gallon market value of the victim’s child in his/her occupational custody on behalf of the victim in the same manner as described in paragraph 1 in the manner as described in paragraph 1.
3. On November 1, 2016, at around 20:00, the Defendant embezzled KRW 40,000,000 in cash owned by the victim while on duty for the victim at his/her safe location.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police against C;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry about criminal history, report on investigation (Attachment of the text of the judgment), and application of statutes of the judgment;
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime.
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;
1. It is not good that the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which the defendant committed each crime during the period of probation, is not good.
However, the fact that the injured party agrees with the injured party and does not want the punishment of the accused, the fact that the injured party repaid the amount of damage to recover the damage, the confession and reflects the crime, and the age of the accused.