Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant operated D, which is a mobile phone sales store in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C 103 and 104, and entered into a contract with the victim corporation on March 17, 2014 to entrust the sale of a mobile phone device with the victim corporation, New Tys and mobile phone sales business, and has been engaged in the victim's mobile phone sales business.

From November 2014 to May 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily entrusted approximately KRW 33810,00 of the market price owned by the victim and embezzled KRW 44 of the mobile phone in the vicinity of the said store.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. The Defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant was irrelevant to the investigation report (including submission of relevant documents) [the Defendant and his/her defense counsel, while he/she was entrusted by the injured party with the sale of the mobile phone owned by the injured party and entrusted him/her to the pawnban, the remainder is that H who acquired the mobile phone sales business around March 2015 by transfer of the mobile phone sales business was independently treated, and the Defendant

In light of the above evidence, the Defendant recognized that the party who entered into an entrustment contract for the sale of mobile phones with the victim was the Defendant himself/herself, and the Defendant was an employee at the time.

A direct contract with the victim using H’s name was concluded by the Defendant, and the Defendant was an employee on March 2015, 2015.

H Not only there is no evidence to prove that the business was taken over by the Defendant solely from the Defendant, but also that there was such a fact.

Even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the party of the sales consignment contract was aware of the victim, the main body of the responsibility for storage and return of the mobile phone paid by the injured party under the above sales consignment contract is the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and the defense counsel on different premises.

The laws and regulations;