When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100.

On June 7, 2017, the Defendant divorced from the husband B representative director C who is the husband.

C around December 18, 2015, around December 18, 2015, entered into a lease agreement with the victim D Co., Ltd., and the EMW 118d s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

On July 18, 2017, while the Defendant kept the car, requested the victim company employees to return the car from the F apartment G in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul to the victim company, but rejected it and embezzled it until now.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A statement prepared by H;

1. Investigation report (public perusal of case records related to the suspect);

1. A complaint, content certification, certified copy of the original register of motor vehicle registration, contract confirmation, termination settlement, etc., BMW financial application, BMW operating lease agreement, Busan Family Court's decision (2016Dhap 200654);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing vehicle photographs;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting the Nowon Station: (a) the Defendant and his defense counsel did not notify the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant, the former husband of the Defendant, was in charge of the EW 118d reported vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and did not notify the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant would pay a certain amount per month to the victim company according to the lease agreement or would allow the victim company to recover the vehicle if not paid the amount; and (b) C did not refund the vehicle under the name of the Defendant (BM 740Li, I, and under the following, “vehicle under the name of the Defendant”). Thus, the Defendant is not in the status of the custodian of the instant vehicle.