On January 22, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lend C QM3 automobiles in the amount of KRW 2,4150,000 from Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) for monthly rent of KRW 721,150,00,000 at the Rono Samsung Government Branch of Mano Samsung, 114, Mano Samsung-si, Mano Samsung. The Defendant received the said QM3 car from the Defendant Company.

When concluding the above lease contract with the victim company, the defendant has ownership of the leased vehicle, and he/she shall not transfer, sublease, or provide the leased vehicle for the purpose of security without the victim's prior written consent.

Since the agreement was reached with the content, the victim company had ownership of the said car during the lease period.

As above, while the Defendant kept the said car owned by the victim company for the victim company, from the end of January 2016 to the end of February 2016, the said car was delivered to D at will without any notice from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant is liable to half the lease charges of the instant vehicle to D and D, and the Defendant transferred the instant vehicle to D to use D’s father by allowing D to use it.

According to these facts of recognition, the Defendant disposed of the property of the victim company in custody for his/her own interest as his/her own property.

may be seen.

Therefore, since the Defendant embezzled the instant vehicle, the Defendant’s assertion that denies it is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 355 of the Criminal Act, and Article 355 of the Criminal Act, are erroneous for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment.