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

On January 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the “C” mobile phone store located in the Sindong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) concluded a lease agreement with the injured party Kitren Co., Ltd. to set the lease period of the DM5 car from July 4, 2016; (c) concluded the lease agreement with the injured party Kitren to set the monthly rent of KRW 506,000; and (d) kept the said car for the injured party; (b) delivered the said car at the coffee shop where it is impossible to identify the neighboring trade name in the general market located in the Sinnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-dong, and then delivered the said car as security to KRW 2,500,000, borrowed money from the credit service provider whose name is unknown.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the above car amounting to KRW 14,402,598 at the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on lease contract, early cancellation, notification of vehicle payment, overdue meeting, customer management log (A), and mobile phone text messages;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, and selection of a fine (the decision of a fine shall be made in consideration of the fact that the defendant recovers the vehicle and delivered it to the victim and the victim desires to find the Defendant’s wife, the primary offender, and the fact that the mistake is recognized and seriously reflected, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;