When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On February 28, 2014, the Defendant, in the name of Jin-si B, a mother, leased DWz E220 automobiles equivalent to KRW 66,00,00 in monthly rent of 1,348,70, and lease period of 48 months in the name of her mother, and embezzled it by refusing to return the said automobiles without justifiable grounds even after receiving notification of the termination of the lease contract and request for return of the leased vehicle from July 2015 to August 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify the scheduled commencement of legal procedures for taking out the automobile facility leasing contract, lease articles for the termination of the facility leasing contract, and notifying the return of vehicles;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is large amount of damage, and the fact that the vehicle has been occupied but has not been returned is unfavorable circumstances or circumstances that are favorable to others, and that there is no previous conviction of the same kind of crime.

In these circumstances, the defendant did not return to the dispute over the termination of the lease contract. However, the defendant applied for the disposition of the price prior to the possession of the vehicle in this case and the execution thereof is likely to be recovered by the victim through civil litigation, etc., and the defendant's age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, and circumstances leading to the crime shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions.