On May 15, 2013, the Defendants leased 51,249,850 won each of the computer main body and monitoring market value to be used by the Defendants in the F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F FC in the above F F F F FC, from the victim Korean siren Co., Ltd. and kept for the victims, the Defendants sold the said computer and monitoring to the said computer business operator from July 2013 to September 14, 2014.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled another’s property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The suspect interrogation protocol concerning H of the police's statement G of the witness B by each of the Defendants' statutory statements

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the maintenance and repair of products under a siren agreement of the Saemaul Bank of Korea, the head of the Saemaul Bank of Korea, and other Acts and subordinate statutes governing the collection of documents prepared under a siren agreement, for each written request for the use of each personal credit information in each siren lease agreement;

1. The pertinent legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the grounds for sentencing of the choice of imprisonment [the scope of the recommended sentence] Class 1 of the Framework Field (4 months to 100 million won) [decision of sentence] [decision of sentence] The instant crime of which the Defendants arbitrarily disposed of the main body and monitors of the computer leased by the Defendants, and monitors, are not good for the nature of the crime, damage amount is larger, and damage recovery was not recovered, so it is inevitable to punish the Defendants.

However, Defendant A did not directly participate in the disposition of a computer exceeding approximately 15 computers; however, the fact that Defendants A used money received from the computer arbitrarily disposed of by the Defendants for the operation of the room or for the repayment of the existing obligations of Defendant A (the accurate distribution is not confirmed); Defendant A was fined once due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act; Defendant B was punished by a fine not exceeding five times but not for the same kind of crime; and other Defendants’ age, sex, circumstances after the crime, etc.