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

From December 29, 2010 to Kimpo-si, the Defendant operated a factory under the trade name “D” from Kimpo-si around December 29, 201, and transferred the factory to E around August 6, 2013.

On August 16, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim SP Capital Co., Ltd. and the lease term of 40 months, the lease deposit of 21,600,000 won, monthly lease of 2,871,73 won, with three financial leases equivalent to the market price of 108,000,000 won, and kept three of the above withdrawal period for the victim. On or around October 2015, the Defendant entered into the said contract and kept three of the said withdrawal period for the victim.

“Along with the purport that they would dispose of the said three boxes of resignations, they impliedly agreed on the disposal of the said three boxes of resignations.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to attached documents, such as written complaint, power of attorney, and lease agreement;

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Suspension of the execution of sentence Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the favorable circumstances of the reasons for sentencing) - the circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing - the preservation of the victim’s damage has not yet been made. The favorable circumstances - the Defendant acknowledges all the criminal facts. - Taking into account the remainder of the victim’s lease payments, the Defendant has no record of being sentenced to a fine so far. The Defendant has no record of being sentenced to a fine until now. In light of all the conditions of sentencing revealed in the course of a trial