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

On May 208, the Defendant paid a rent of KRW 300,000 per month from the injured party to the E parking lot located adjacent to the victim Co., Ltd. located adjacent to the Busan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, and leased one of the F Trrler owned by the victim, and sold the said Trler at his/her own discretion upon receiving five million won from the victim for the victim on September 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

1. A motor vehicle registration certificate, a detailed statement of vehicle rents, and payment details of automobile sales proceeds [the defendant and his defense counsel did not sell the F Twr (hereinafter “the instant Twr”) owned by the victim to le Construction Co., Ltd., but leased the money to a third party; however, le Construction arbitrarily sold the said Twr to a third party, so it does not constitute embezzlement against the defendant.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, the defendant lent 8 leleers owned by the defendant to a leap Construction around June 2014 or around August 2014 to use leap Construction by leasing 8 leleers owned by the defendant. At the time of the above lending agreement, it is recognized that the defendant transferred leleers to a leap Construction in order to substitute leapper as the leapper was not included in the leapper at the time of the above lending agreement.

However, according to the evidence above, 1 leap Construction was used after being transferred to the defendant around August 2014.

The fact that the Defendant agreed to purchase 8 Trrlers, ② The eight Trlers that the time was to purchase were included in the instant Trlers, and the Defendant was well aware of this fact; ③ The Defendant paid approximately KRW 40 million to the Defendant with the purchase price of eight Trlers including the instant Trlers around that time, and ④ Nevertheless, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 40 million.