If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On July 15, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and the factory price of KRW 54,662,34 at the point south of Hyundai Capital, which is located in Samsung-dong 141-1, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, under the condition that the lease fee of KRW 1,653,350 for four months is paid, and had the said vehicle be handed over to D and kept in custody.

On November 18, 201, while the defendant kept the above vehicle through D for the victim company, the defendant was notified of the termination of the contract and requested the return of the vehicle on the ground of overdue rent from the victim company, but refused to return the vehicle without justifiable grounds.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, copy of examination slip, copy of automobile facility leasing contract, copy of automobile register, copy of notice of termination of lease contract, and deposit details;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: the defendant entered into a contract for vehicle lease with the victim upon the request of D, who is pro-Japanese, and D did not return the vehicle to the victim company; therefore, the defendant alleged that there is a justifiable reason not to return the vehicle; therefore, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim company upon the request of D, and made D use the vehicle by taking over the vehicle, and the defendant did not keep the vehicle despite having received the request from the victim company.