A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from March 29, 2012 to November 10, 2012, served as the store store of “E” mobile phone store operated by the victim D located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, while engaging in store business and management, such as mobile phone sales, inventory management, customer business management, and computer management.

On August 8, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of five mobile phones owned by the said victim, which had been kept in custody in business for the purpose of opening them to the customers, and used the proceeds for personal purposes such as living expenses.

From that time to November 5, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of 29 mobile phones worth a total of 28,293,100 won of the market price over 11 times as shown in the attached list of crimes, and embezzled the property of the victim for personal use, such as living expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Entry of each part of D in the protocol of the examination of the suspect against the defendant, and the protocol of the second examination of the suspect;

1. Protocol of partial statement of the police about D;

1. Statement of each police statement related to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, a statement on the reason of loss in stock, a repayment plan of debts, and a mobile phone purchase statement;

1. The reason [decision of type] for the sentencing of Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act [decision of type] below the 100 million won in embezzlement and breach of trust [decision of the recommended field] basic area / [Scope of recommendation] from April to April 1 year [No person who is a general person] - there is no record of reflective punishment that is serious for mitigation elements - where the crime is embezzlement of aggravated elements [decision of sentence] defendant is the primary offender and his mistake is divided.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant's deposit of KRW 3 million for the victim in addition to the deposit, the defendant is unable to recover the remainder of the victim's damage caused by the crime of this case, it is inevitable to

. Other.