However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 29, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s operation “D” stipulating that “the victim’s character character Korea Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s “S (HAS) learning center” machinery owned by the Victim Co., Ltd. as “the cost of goods KRW 220 million, the lease period of KRW 36 months, the lease period of KRW 4,876,000,” respectively.

In accordance with the above lease agreement, the Defendant, on October 16, 2015, sold one of the above machinery to 27,000,000 won to 27,000,000,000 won, and embezzled the remainder of the machinery to 22,00,000 won per 2,00,000 won at the same place as around February 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of a lease agreement, a sales contract, a receipt of an article, a notification of commencement of a lease, a report on the inspection of a leased article, a claim for rent/deposit status, and a provision of a statute applicable to the notification of termination of a contract;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, including the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not substantial, the fact that there was a history of punishment for the same criminal record, the fact that the Defendant repents and reflects his mistake, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim, etc.