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

On October 2010, the Defendant sold one set of equipment equivalent to KRW 60 million to the victim E at the D office operated by the Defendant in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the victim leased the equipment to another person, received rent, and had the Defendant keep and repair the equipment upon the expiration of the lease period, and the Defendant was engaged in the storage and repair of the equipment for the victim. On June 2012, 201, the Defendant received the equipment from the victim and kept it for the victim.

On July 1, 2012, the Defendant agreed to supply one set of equipment to F representative G and 70 million won prior to the date in the name of the Defendant, while receiving KRW 40,000,000 as down payment, but due to the lack of operating expenses, the production of equipment ordered by the said G was delayed, and the Defendant embezzled one set of equipment owned by the victim, which was kept at his own discretion at the said D office, by transferring the said equipment to G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., circumstances favorable to the defendant among the reasons for sentencing) provides that the nature of the crime in this case is somewhat weak in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime, the degree of damage inflicted on the victim, etc., but the defendant recognizes and reflects his/her mistake, the defendant has no record of being sentenced to the punishment heavier than the fine, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., shall be sentenced as ordered.