On November 21, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Daegu District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2015.

Around February 8, 2012, the Defendant, as a constructor, concluded a lease agreement with the victim E engaging in construction materials leasing business at the site of a new construction site of "D," and with the construction materials to be used for the said new construction works from February 16, 2012 to May 16, 2012, to lease KRW 130 million during three months from May 16, 2012, the Defendant paid only KRW 15 million out of the down payment agreed on February 16, 2012 as part of the construction materials agreed from the date on February 17, 2012, and kept them for the victim from that time.

Nevertheless, around January 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) leased construction materials that fall short of the site at the construction site at the construction site; (b) transferred the materials stored by the victim as above to G as a collateral for the unpaid rent of KRW 59 million; and (c) arbitrarily disposed of them.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled construction materials owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. A copy of invoice, copy of the usual lease agreement, copy of materials succession and lease agreement, and each entry in an investigation report (Attachment of a photograph);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of references to criminal records, etc. and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes stated in each written judgment;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 355 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not contact the victim to return construction materials, but did not contact with G.