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

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of embezzlement and embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 2 is acquitted.

On March 31, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily offered the said car to Nonindicted Co. 4, which was located in the Gyeonggi-si ( Address 3 omitted), for the purpose of securing the Defendant’s obligation, and embezzled it.

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Letter of payment;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) does not recover from damage, but does not seem to have first been provided as security by the defendant, including the fact that the defendant has no criminal record of the

1. Community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order: Articles 32 (1) and (2) and 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the value of a Bosch Rexroth car, i.e., the scope of liability for damages is not clear);

1. The recommended sentence for the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court: The basic area among types 1 of fraud and embezzlement, four months from imprisonment to one year and six months;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On March 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on the front day of the △△ Industrial Complex (No. 3 companies) located in the △△△△ City of Gyeonggi-si (No. 4 omitted), the Defendant stated, “The Defendant would make a transfer of the said vehicle within one month after purchasing and repairing the said vehicle at the face of the purchase fund and the repair cost.” However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim for the said purchase fund and repair cost due to the lack of the circumstances of the ○○○ Industrial Complex, which had been operating at the time of the ○○○○○ Industrial Complex of Korea, for the said purchase fund and repair cost, the Defendant purchased the vehicle under the name of the victim once, and was planned to use the said vehicle for personal purposes, such as the said ○○○ Industrial Complex’s operating expenses and living cost. However, there was no intention or ability to give the said vehicle to the victim by repairing the said vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 4.5 million from the victim’s seat to April 6, 2012, received a total of KRW 34 million from around that time to April 6, 2012 as the purchase fund and the repair cost, and acquired the remainder of KRW 9 million as the purchase fund.

B. Determination

The defendant asserts that the defendant received a remittance of KRW 24.5 million from the victim for the purchase fund and repair cost of a vehicle, and purchased the franchise of KRW 20.5 million from the victim, and that one million out of KRW 4 million is used for the purchase cost of a part and used for the cost of a living cost of KRW 3 million inevitably, and that there was no intention to acquire the repair cost from the beginning.

Therefore, this paper examines whether the defendant received KRW 34 million from the victim as stated in the facts charged for the purpose of funds to purchase and repair automobiles.

The victim made a statement at the police or submitted a list of crimes as follows:

On July 11, 200, HG 200, KRW 19 million, KRW 500,000, KRW 500,000, KRW 7500,000, KRW 7500,000,000. (total 31.5,50,000,000) was paid to the Defendant for the purchase of a vehicle on July 17, 200, KRW 350,000,000, KRW 500,000,000, KRW 500,000,000, KRW 500,000,000,000, KRW 500,000,000 for the purchase of a vehicle on March 23, 27, 200, KRW 505,000,00 for the above HG vehicle on April 26, 200.

Note 1) ?

However, not only ① the victim made the above statements without consistency, but also 34 million won. It was impossible for the victim to present objective evidence about 9.5 million won, such as the source of funds, and there was no reasonable explanation about the reasons why some of the defendant was found during the account transfer to 9.5 million won. ② The loan certificate prepared by the defendant (4 pages of investigation records) that the defendant received 5.5 million won from the victim to purchase 25 million won and 40 million won, which is stated to the effect that it was difficult for the victim to purchase 50 million won and 50 million won and 50 million won and 50 million won and 50 million won, respectively. The victim was towing to another automobile maintenance industry company and to pay 1 million won for the above 50G funds, and the victim still purchased 4 million won and 50 million won and 4 million won and 50 million won and 50G funds, respectively.

Meanwhile, Non-Indicted 5 testified to the effect that the victim had been given cash twice in this court. However, it is difficult to believe the above statements made by Non-Indicted 5 as they are, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) Non-Indicted 5 does not seem to have made a clear memory of the date, time, place, amount, and circumstances in which the victim paid cash to the defendant; (b) the victim asserted that he was paid in cash three times, including the case in which he was accompanied with Non-Indicted 5; (c) Non-Indicted 5 stated that he was paid in cash twice only in this case; and (d) it is deemed that each of the above statements made by the police of the victim are not reliable.

Except for each of the above statements, there is no evidence to view that the defendant received a sum of KRW 34 million from the victim as a fund for purchasing a vehicle and for repairing expenses, and purchased two of KRW 25 million among them, and acquired the remainder of KRW 9 million by deceiving the victim (as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had an intention to acquire money from the beginning of the repair expenses from the beginning, even if he/she had an intention to acquire money in the name of 24.5 million out of the transferred money from the victim as a cost of purchasing and repairing a vehicle, and did not complete repair by using 4 million won as a cost of living, etc., even if he/she did not have completed repair, he/she actually purchased two automobiles from the victim, and the ratio of the repair expenses to the money received from the victim was relatively high. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant attempted to repair while working in the 000 industry, even if at the time, he/she attempted to do so).

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The point of embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, who received a liquid loan purchase fund from the victim Nonindicted 2, purchased and accepted it under the victim’s name, and agreed to do so within one month.

On April 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily embezzled the said car by refusing to return it to the victim’s intent of illegal acquisition even when the Defendant was requested to return it on April 2012, 2012 at the request of the victim to repair the car at a cost equivalent to KRW 8 million at the market price owned by the victim at the ○○ Industrial Complex, which is located in the ○○○○○○○○ City ( Address 1 omitted).

B. Determination

“Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against a custodian. As such, in order for a custodian to constitute embezzlement, the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return is insufficient to the extent that the refusal of return is deemed as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the grounds for refusal of return and the subjective intent. The so-called intent of illegal acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another’s property as he/she disposes of it with the owner without a legitimate title contrary to the purport of embezzlement. Thus, even if he/she refused to return it, if he/she did not return it due to justifiable grounds, the intention of illegal acquisition cannot be deemed as the intention of unlawful acquisition.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, around March 26, 2012, the Defendant agreed to purchase ○○ Industries, which is an accident vehicle, and repair it from the maintenance industry company to deliver to the victim (on one month, franchise HG is agreed to deliver within one boat). The Defendant received vehicle charges and repair expenses from the victim during the period from April 6 of the same year, and purchased franchisium with the franchisium, but it was difficult for the victim to purchase parts necessary for repair due to the fact that the franchisium was mainly used for living expenses, etc., and the franchisium was not repaired. On May 2012, 2012, the Defendant did not request repair from the 200○ Industrial Complex located in the Defendant’s work, and the Defendant did not repair the 200○ Industrial Complex to another franchisium and franchisium, and the Defendant did not repair the 200th of the 200th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2nd of the repair.

According to the above facts of recognition, although the Defendant did not return liquid speech to the victim at the end of April 2012, which is the date of refusal to return the statement in the facts charged, the reason is that the repair of liquid speech at the time was not completed. Around that time, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim to promptly repair and deliver it, and continued to keep it. Since it appears to have been left alone on the road near the previous automobile maintenance industry company, it is difficult to view that the Defendant intended to dispose of liquid speech as his own owner, i.e., the intent to acquire it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Choi Jong-chul

Note 1) Inability to read;