Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

A.

A. Although Defendant B did not intend to embezzled the instant vehicle from the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The defendants' punishment (the defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 1 year and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are revealed: (i) Defendant B requested the victim to enter into a lease contract on the instant vehicle under the name of Defendant B by requesting the victim, a person with bad credit standing who was unable to directly enter into the lease contract; and (ii) Defendant B used and used the instant vehicle; and (iii) Defendant B transferred the amount equivalent to the lease fee to Defendant A with the said money to the victim; (iv) Defendant B paid the lease fee to the victim; however, Defendant B did not send the amount equivalent to the lease fee to the above money, but Defendant B had the victim pay the lease fee to the victim with the wind without sending the lease fee at one time; (iii) Defendant B was urged to pay the lease fee several times by the victim, but the victim did not receive a demand for the return of the instant vehicle under the terms and conditions, and the victim could have been aware of the fact that the instant vehicle was transferred to the victim by taking advantage of the use of and profit from the instant vehicle, and the Defendants B had been aware of the fact that the instant vehicle was terminated.