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

On June 26, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on the vehicle price of KRW 70,90,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,491,611, and KRW 60 months for the lease period of KRW 60 months in relation to the E-A6 car owned by the said company at the (ju) branch office in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si. and received the above A6 car delivery.

The Defendant and the said victim agreed to the effect that “the ownership of the leased vehicle shall be the victim regardless of the registered name of the vehicle, and shall not engage in any act that may infringe on the ownership and legitimate rights of the financial company, such as providing the vehicle to a third party for the purpose of security,” while concluding the said lease contract. As such, the victim company has ownership of the said A6 vehicle during the lease period.

On September 10, 2013, while the Defendant kept one of the above A6 automobiles for the victim, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 20 million from a lender with no mutual knowledge of the trade name in the vicinity of the G hotel located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si and offered the said vehicle as a security for the borrowed money.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] No person who does not have a basic area (4-1-1-4 months) (4-100 million won) (the decision of sentence] [the decision of sentence] the amount of damage is not less minor, and the fact that the victim agreed with or did not pay the damage is an element for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

The defendant is against the defendant when committing a crime, the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind, and the defendant is recommended by the partner when operating his/her business with his/her partner and the lack of funds.