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

[Criminal Power] On April 25, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution on April, 201 to interfere with the exercise of rights by the Incheon District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 3, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 13, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease contract on the condition that D and 1 E-1 of the market value of KRW 129,700,000,000,000 per month, which is owned by the victimized company, shall be paid the lease fee of KRW 2,062,482 for 48 months, and the remaining value shall be set at KRW 5,640,00,00,000 for delivery of the said vehicle.

On November 20, 2018, the Defendant refused to return the said car by hiding it at the F apartment G apartment parking lot in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, even though the Defendant received notification of the termination of the said lease agreement and the request for the return of the said car from the injured company on November 20, 2018, because he/she failed to pay the rent from around October 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A statement prepared by H;

1. Application for D Financial Services, D Operation Lease Agreements, Lease Standard Terms and Conditions, Contract Certificate, and Written Estimates of Finance;

1. Receipts and content certificates;

1. Reports on demomo Re;

1. A certified copy, abstract, and full certificate of the registered matters (current and effective matters) of the motor vehicle register;

1. Photographs of vehicles;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, reply reports and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of one written judgment;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The value of the vehicle embezzled for the reason of sentencing under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is larger, and even if the victimized company requested several times to return the vehicle, the injured company refused to comply with the request and paid the leased fee of KRW 41 million at the time of the crime, and the injured company returned the vehicle after the indictment of this case, taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the injured company withdraws the complaint after returning the vehicle after the indictment of this case, and simultaneously with the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive.