On December 16, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim's spons Co., Ltd. (former Kitrens Co., Ltd.) to rent KRW 1,107,000 per month for 48 months in the name of Hanyang Industry Development Co., Ltd. and to pay KRW 52,60,000 per month the market price owned by the victim, at the mutual insplate shop located in the Yongsandong-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) entered into a lease agreement to pay the difference of KRW 1,107,00 per month in the name of Hanyang Industry Development Co., Ltd.; (b) on December 30, 2014, the Defendant received the said vehicle and used it while keeping the said vehicle for the victim

Accordingly, the victim company terminated the lease contract on June 11, 2015, notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract, and requested the Defendant to return the vehicle several times from that time, the Defendant refused to return the vehicle without justifiable grounds from that time to March 29, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A motor vehicle lease contract, a written notification of compulsory termination and contact details, termination of the contract and notification of return of the motor vehicle, and details of receipt of reports on unclaimed theft, and requests;

1. Automobile registration certificate;

1. Each investigation report (the No. 11, 14, 17, and 18 of the evidence list), the application of each statute of photograph;

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, the scope of the recommended sentence [the basic area (from April to January 14) of the type 1 (less than KRW 100,00) in the name of the company that lent the name], and there is room for delay in returning the vehicle due to the bond relationship with the representative of the company that lent the name, but the defendant did not return the vehicle while delaying the payment of the rent for a long time without paying the rent only once the vehicle at the time of taking over the vehicle, and the defendant did not take appropriate measures to recover the damage by disregarding the vehicle, even if he was asked to return the vehicle after being investigated by the investigative agency.