When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On December 5, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to pay KRW 44,170,827 in total on 21 occasions each month from October 10 to August 10, 2016, with the monthly rent of KRW 12,101,362, the social services Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd”) and the lease deposit of KRW 12,101,362 in the name of C, and had the said automobile kept the said vehicle for the victim’s company by delivery of Dsch Rexroths owned by the victim company.

After paying a sum of KRW 17,674,923 as monthly user fees, etc. from December 10, 2014 to November 10, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the said car to the victim company by refusing to return the said car without justifiable grounds despite the victim company’s demand from December 12, 2015 to May 2016 for the termination of the said contract and the return of the said car by mail, telephone, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of E;

1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of detailed statement made between the complainant and the suspect);

1. A contract for change of a motor vehicle lessee, an application/contract for motor vehicle lease, terms and conditions of motor vehicle lease, and a statement of redemption;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notification of criminal advance notice;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention in the workhouse is that the Defendant was urged to return the said vehicle for a long time, even though he/she was demanded to return the said vehicle even during the contract concluded by the victim company under Article 20(2) of the Lease Contract by delay on at least two consecutive occasions a month, but he/she shall be subject to criticism. However, the Defendant completed the return of the said vehicle to the victim company on October 13, 2016 and agreed to do so, and the Defendant has no criminal history exceeding the fine.