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.

【Criminal Records of Crimes】 On October 22, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and three years and six months at the Seoul Western District Court on embezzlement, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 30, 2013.

【Criminal facts” On February 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a request from the victim D to sell the E-learning vehicle owned by the victim at the office located in the Seocho-si B, Seocho-si; (b) sold the said vehicle on April 9, 2012; and (c) used the said vehicle without returning it to the victim while being kept for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Payment note, the ledger of motor vehicle registration for damaged motor vehicles (E);

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: (A) a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, reporting on the results of confirmation of previous convictions in the disposition, reporting on investigation (verification of the relationship between ex post facto concurrent crimes), and a copy of the judgment (No. 526, 2013, 367, etc.), shall apply to the application of statutes;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 37 (1);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The sentencing criteria do not apply to the crimes committed by the accused who is not subject to the sentencing criteria, as they are in the relationship of concurrent crimes before and after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

2. In the event that the criminal defendant commits the crime of sentencing, it shall not be deemed that the proceeds from the sale of his/her vehicle is embezzled and thus the trust relationship with the victim is violated;

There is no circumstance in which the victim agreed with or the damage recovery was made.

However, the defendant shows that the defendant recognized the crime in this court, and shows a strong reflectivity.

The amount of damage is relatively short.

Although the defendant has a past record of criminal punishment four times, including the previous record of judgment, he/she shall be punished by a fine, if he/she excludes the previous record of judgment.