On November 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the victim (owner) Samsung Card to lend 18.2.6 million won in total the market value of the victim’s ownership; (b) concluded on August 30, 2015, under which the said contract was terminated on August 30, 2015; and (c) requested the return of the said machinery from the victim around that time, but was rejected and embezzled without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the statutes governing lease succession agreement;

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the reasons for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment, and the reasons for choosing a sentence of punishment;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court Sentencing / [type] where a significant damage has been restored to the mitigation area [special mitigation elements] of type 2 (at least KRW 100,000, but less than KRW 500,000] (the scope of the recommended punishment] - six months to two years;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant embezzled two leased machinery equivalent to KRW 182.6 million, and that no agreement was reached with the victim company and no recovery of damage was made after embezzlement, the sentence to the Defendant is inevitable.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime of this case, etc., where the defendant has recognized all of the crimes of this case and is in depth divided, the amount of substantial damage to the victim company if the defendant offered lease fees, deposit money, etc. already paid at the time of the crime of this case appears to exceed 57 million won, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution, etc., the defendant should be considered as favorable to the defendant. In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments of this case including the defendant