A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
The defendant is a person who operates a D Co., Ltd. which manufactures electronic parts, etc., and the victim C is a person who actually operates E Co., Ltd. which manufactures parts processing machinery, etc.
On March 2012, the Defendant agreed to rent the CNC high-speed processing machine from the victim and pay half of the profits from the machine to the victim. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant had a total of six processing equipment delivered to the victim, including one unit of CNC high-speed storage machine (one unit of serial number CNPA-15-L05096) at a factory located in Busan Metropolitan CityF around June 201, which is equivalent to KRW 75 million at the market price.
On February 4, 2013, when a dispute arises between the victim and the victim on the settlement of profits, the defendant agreed to return the three parts of the above processing period by priority, but the damaged parts, etc. are to be returned when the defendant seeks replacement machinery.
The Defendant, on February 28, 2013, purchased a substitute machine for the above damaged product, but embezzled by refusing to return the above CNC high-speed air (Japan No. CNES-15-L05096), which is the damaged product, without justifiable grounds.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness C and G;
1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the C’s statement);
1. Statement to C by the police;
1. Results of inquiry into H stock companies;
1. As to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel as to the certified transcript of corporate register, contract, tax invoice, statement of profits, sales contract, content certificate, and written agreement (mechanic takeover), the defendant and defense counsel asserted that there is no intention of unlawful acquisition because there is any justifiable reason for refusal to return the damaged goods of this case.
According to the above evidence, the defendant shall return two processed devices, such as the above damaged goods owned by the victim to the victim on January 30, 2013 until the end of April 2013, and if necessary, the same year.
5. By the end, the defendant company shall extend to the end and, if so, shall replace the defendant company.