The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

26. 26.

A. In relation to embezzlement, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle for the purpose of escape together with M and AZ as a proposal of the AZ, which is a type of the victim M’s death, with the intent of escape, and provided it as security with the consent of M or at least with the consent of M.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 2, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged (part 828 of the order of 2017) is as follows: (a) the Defendant provided the said car to P around December 1, 2015 under the condition that the victim M will receive KRW 28,00,000,000 from LA trading company located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City around December 2, 2015; (b) the victim M was transferred to and stored for the victim on behalf of the victim, while the business fund was insufficient, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by offering the said vehicle as security and receiving money; and (c) around December 7, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property on the condition that P would receive KRW 7,20,000,000.

2) The lower court determined that M was issued a certificate of seal impression for the registration of the director of “R” company of the Defendant in the lower court.

The AZ’s statement also corresponds to the AZ’s statement in the lower court, and each legal statement in the M and AZ (in particular, M and AZ provided the instant vehicle as collateral after the Defendant provided the instant vehicle as collateral.

In full view of the fact that all of the stated parts was the burden of perjury, the Defendant recognized the fact that he embezzled the instant vehicle, in view of the following: (a) the attitude at the time of each of the above statutory statements and the overall content thereof does not seem to have any different circumstances to suspect the credibility of each of the legal statements; and (b) the transfer of accounts frequently between the Defendant, M and AZ was made.

(iii)..