횡령
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case was that the Defendant lent KRW 120 million to D in 2009, but was unable to receive approximately KRW 60 million, and thus, the Defendant leased a vehicle under the name of E, a stock company operated by the said D, and the Defendant was to use the leased vehicle, pay the lease price, and substitute it for the repayment of the said obligation.
On January 7, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim company in the name of the said company E at the social Incheon social point located in the 7th floor of the Heungdong-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, on January 7, 2010, with respect to the F204,490 won, which is the ownership of the victim company in the name of the said company E, and received the said physical part vehicle from the victim company, and kept the said vehicle for the victim company or the said D.
However, the lease contract was terminated since the above D paid a total of KRW 29,129,234 over 19 times until September 5, 201, and the economic situation has deteriorated, and the lease contract was no longer paid.
From September 1, 2011, the victim company notified the above D that the vehicle should be returned, and the above D requested that the above vehicle be returned to the defendant on or around December 201, 201, but the defendant refused to return the above vehicle, but the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor's office of Incheon District Prosecutors' Office 423 around June 10, 201, and embezzled the above vehicle by refusing to return the vehicle for about one year and six months until he expressed his intention to refuse to return it.
2. First of all, the examination of each evidence and each circumstance submitted by the prosecutor reveals the probative value as a disposal document of the lease contract bound on the 7 pages of the investigation records, and the above D or E is merely a nominal lender. Since it is difficult to view the Defendant and the above corporation as a social member, the actual contractual party cannot be seen as a proof of a direct consignment relationship between the Defendant and the above victim and the victim our society.