Defendant

A around February 1, 2014, the two main places of business operated by the Defendant at Yangju-si, the two main places of business in Yangju-si, to purchase the above for the victim F the market price of 11 million won, which is the victim's ownership, and to store and use the for the victim during the price adjustment period. A was required to return the above for the victim around March 15, 2014.

However, Defendant A, a workplace commercial employee, refused to return the said car according to the direction of Defendant B, “I will return the said car because there is money to be received from the victim,” and Defendant B, around 19:30 on the same day, carried the car to be used by truck at the above two main places of business as Incheon E.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to contract for the transfer and takeover of construction machinery and certificate of construction machinery transfer;

1. Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 355 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be suspended from sentence: 1,500,000 won by fine; and

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) (one hundred thousand won a day) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants of suspended sentence: Article 59(1) of each Criminal Code (the conclusion of the relevant civil case by conciliation and the agreement was reached in full, the Defendants committed the same act as the facts of the crime by the manager of G in relation to the principal office under the direction of H, G instructed the Defendants to refuse to return the vehicle to the Defendants as a means of securing the right to claim the unpaid purchase and sale related to the above for the victims, and the Defendants were in a position that it is difficult for them to actually refuse the direction of G, which is the supervisor, and Defendant A is the first offender, Defendant B has no record of punishment for property crimes, and the Defendants reflect their mistakes).