On October 15, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for embezzlement at the Changwon District Court on the 23th of the same month, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, and was released on March 30, 2010 from the Jinju Prison on parole on the parole on March 30, 201, and terminated on April 12, 2010.

The defendant is a person who has operated gold processing manufacturers with the trade name of Kimhae-si D.

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s factory, the victim non-Ssc Capital Company, and the leased goods: (a) the machine learning center (a model name: HI-V50D, market price: KRW 75,00,00): 36 months; and (b) monthly rent: 2,085,507; and (c) around that time, the Defendant received the leased goods and kept them in custody at the Defendant’s factory, and embezzled them by arbitrarily taking out and disposing of the said leased goods on February 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Details of a lease contract, written confirmation of leased property, written estimate, written report on the examination of leased property, photographs of leased property, and details of the repayment of the amount of mid-to long-term lease;

1. Previous convictions: Application of investigation reports (Attachment of judgments sentenced to the latest suspect)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders [the scope of recommending punishment] Article 35 of the Criminal Act [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] Article 1 of the aggravated area (10-2000 million won] [10-206] [the person under special guard] of the same repeated offense [the decision of sentencing] does not cause damage to the victim and does not recover from damage, and the fact that the

However, considering the favorable circumstances in which the accused commits a mistake, the sentence may be somewhat lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the age, health conditions, and environment of the accused.