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

On March 31, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on July 22, 2016, due to interference with business affairs, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 22, 2016.

On July 17, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and Echip car at the time of 34,280,000, monthly rent of KRW 591,00, monthly rent of KRW 591,00, and the lease period of 48 months, and received the said vehicle delivery.

The above lease contract provides that the lessee shall possess the ownership of the leased vehicle, the lessee may appoint an agent from time to time to deliver the vehicle, and the lessee shall not engage in any act that may infringe on the ownership and legitimate rights of the leased company by providing the vehicle to the third party without the consent of the lease company.

Therefore, the defendant should not take over the above car and provide it for the purpose of security, and even though the above car was kept for the victim while operating the above car, the previous defendant borrowed 35 million won to the defendant.

Then, the car was offered to F as security by allowing F to deliver the car without the victim's permission.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect against each part of the defendant by the prosecution (including the F substitute part);

1. G statements;

1. Investigative inquiries into an application for automobile lease, the register of automobile registration, and the register of automobile repayment;

1. Recording records;

1. A previous conviction: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment of the judgment of the relevant case, etc.), and the result of the search of the case (the defendant and the defense counsel did not agree F as the defendant promised F to provide the instant vehicle as security or to deliver the vehicle, at will.