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

The Defendant, who operated a company with the name of (State) D in the substantial Gu of Cheongju City, sold a vehicle to another person due to a shortage of the company operation funds, and provided it as security to the other person.

Accordingly, on May 22, 2015, the Defendant, through a lease agreement, provided that the monthly rent of KRW 102,865,600 shall be paid between 48 months for the lease amounting to KRW 2,031,90 per month at the car center where the trade name in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is unknown, while the Defendant received and kept the said vehicle at the car center where it is difficult to know of the trade name in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and then embezzled it by providing the Defendant’s company with a loan to the Defendant’s company at around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investigation report (Agreement on Motor Vehicle Lease);

1. Automobile registration certificate;

1. Application for automobile lease, detailed statement of payment of lease fees, records of credit management, application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The basic area (one to three years) (one year) of the sentencing guidelines shall be the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] according to the sentencing guidelines, and the basic area (the period between 100 million won and 500 million won) of the recommended punishment;

2. The elements of sentencing that are disadvantageous to the determination of sentencing: The amount of embezzlement is large and not supported by the recovery of damage. Recognizing that the sentencing factors favorable to o have no particular criminal record, other than twice a fine due to occupational embezzlement, etc., it is erroneous to recognize the error and reflect. o, taking account of the sentencing factors under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the sentence is set as ordered by the order.