However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, around September 16, 2013, entered into a lease agreement with the Hanju-si, 679-40, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., which is located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., and had been delivered the said car from the injured party, by entering into the said lease agreement with the damaged party, with the term of lease equivalent to KRW 35,334,90, the injured party’s market value, which is equivalent to KRW 35,300, the injured party-owned.

While the Defendant kept the said car on behalf of the victim, on February 2015, the Defendant borrowed 30 million won from C to a non-permanent place, and provided C with the said car arbitrarily as a collateral.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Filing of a complaint, filing of an application for a lease agreement, and guidance for termination of a lease agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (person C and telephone communications);

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 suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment] Type 1(1) of the basic area (of less than 100 million won) / [decision of sentence] / Defendant’s / Defendant’s misunderstanding against himself/herself, agreed with the victim, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, including Defendant’s age, sex and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., shall be determined within the scope of recommended punishment as ordered.