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

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract for the lease of one motor vehicle of the amount of KRW 30,960,000 of the D market value owned by the victim and the victim company at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which is located in Kimhae-si B around February 2, 2016, and the lessee entered into the written indictment as “the lessee is the Defendant,” but according to the records, the lessee of the automobile lease contract appears to be “(35 pages of evidence records)C” (the defendant was the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.). However, it is sufficient in the actual relationship of the entrustment of property storage in embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13751, Oct. 13, 2011). Thus, even if the above amendment procedure is made, it does not hinder the Defendant’s exercise of defense ex officio.

The term of lease is 48 months, monthly rent is 816,00 won, and the above vehicle is to be returned on February 17, 2020, which is the expiration date of the term of the contract, and the above vehicle was transferred on February 17, 2016 and kept it for the victim company.

However, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent from around March 2017, and embezzled the vehicle by refusing to comply with the request for return of the vehicle without justifiable reasons even though the contract was in contact with the victim company on September 7, 2017, because the loan fee was in arrears and the contract was terminated immediately.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaint;

1. A motor vehicle lease agreement and other accompanying documents;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (No. 8 of the evidence list);

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment] Type 1 (less than 100 million won) is mitigated (one month to ten months) [the person who is specially mitigated] who is not subject to punishment or whose significant damage is recovered (the decision of sentence] and the following.