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

On August 21, 2012, at the office of the victim New Capital Co., Ltd. located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant entered into a vehicle lease agreement with the owner of the said vehicle to use the said vehicle as the vehicle price of 68,80,000 won, deposit of 13,760,000 won, monthly lease fee of 1,593,090 won, and lease period of 44 months, while the Defendant kept the said vehicle for the victim, on November 23, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily provided the said vehicle to E without the consent of the victim at a non-place as a collateral for personal liability without any consent of the victim, and rejected the return of the said vehicle without justifiable reasons. < Amended by Act No. 11413, Jan. 23, 2013>

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, motor vehicle registration certificate, or facility leasing contract;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act - No aggravated factors (special sentencing) - The elements for mitigation are smaller than KRW 100 million (special sentencing) - The scope of punishment not to be imposed [the scope of punishment by recommendation] : 6 months to 10 months to 10 months to 10 months to 10 months in the area of mitigation [the scope of sentence by recommendation], but the scope of damage for one year in suspension of execution is small. Meanwhile, the defendant resulted in the crime due to other creditors' demand for repayment. In the meantime, the defendant returns the vehicle and reflects the mistake, the victim does not want punishment against the defendant by returning the vehicle, and there is no criminal record of the same kind or suspension of execution, the defendant'

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.