However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with a victim on a DNA car equivalent to KRW 36,004,80 of the market price owned by the victim’s modern capital at the agency of Hyundai Motor Vehicle C in Masan-si B; and (b) operated and kept the said car by delivery, the Defendant arbitrarily borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from a person who was under the name of the deceased around September of the same year and provided the said car as security.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

On March 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) entered into an automobile lease agreement with the victim and received and retained the said cargo from the injured party during the period of 48 months on the part of the Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., E; (b) on the part of the Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant requested on March 3, 2015, that the said cargo should be returned along with the notice of termination on the contract, and (c) the said cargo should be returned without justifiable grounds, while the vehicle ownership is the victim and the monthly rent is not paid.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

"2016 Highest 1205"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. The accusation report, the terms and conditions of automobile leasing, and the inquiry of deposit details "2017 Maz. 370";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, an application for vehicle lease, and an inquiry about deposit details;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 355 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (such as the fact that an agreement has been reached with the victimized company and that there is no significant record of crime);