However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

After jointly establishing G Co., Ltd., a recycling company of electrical and electronic resources, with F, on June 4, 2013, the Defendant leased one body-man car equivalent to KRW 77,280,000 from the market price to the victim, a limited liability company H operated by the said F, to use it as a business vehicle of the said G, and on June 4, 2013, the Defendant paid rent of KRW 2,072,50 to the said G.

As above, while the Defendant kept the above vehicle for the victim, the above G was unable to pay the rent from time to time, and the above facility leasing contract was terminated around November 2013. The Defendant was notified by the victim of the termination of the above facility leasing contract by telephone around February 2014, and the Defendant continued to comply with the request for return of the above vehicle without any justifiable reason even if he was requested to return the said vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. A complaint;

1. Each investigation report (to be accompanied by a copy of a notice of expected termination of a lease agreement, and the case of telephone communications for victims);

1. Application of lease contract, notice of scheduled progress of legal procedure, and register of automobiles Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 355 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. From one month to five years of the applicable sentences in law; and

2. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines [the determination of types] Embezzlement 1 (100 million won) - Where the risk of occurrence of damage to mitigation factors is not substantially realized, where the degree of violation of duties is insignificant [the decision of the recommended area] - Special mitigation area [the general person] - Occupational Embezzlement and Misappropriation of mitigation factors are not occupational embezzlement and misappropriation.