If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On July 5, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim D on July 20, 2012, to pay 15 million won deposit and lease 200,000 won until July 20, 2012.

On July 19, 2012, the Defendant carried out two of the above machinery at the factory C Co., Ltd. on behalf of the victim and embezzled them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A seizure list, a protocol of provisional auction for corporeal movables, and an application for delivery of auction goods;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment of the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the Defendant’s defense counsel and the Defendant’s defense counsel acquired the object indicated in the facts constituting an offense (the bareboat 2) not owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machine”) by means of an alteration of possession rather than a real delivery, etc., and thus, did not bona fide acquire it.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the murderer, corporeal movables auction record, and the application for delivery of auction goods, the Daejeon District Court enforcement officer conducted the seizure of the instant machinery. The victim paid the proceeds of sale of the instant machinery to the said enforcement officer on July 4, 2012, and recognized the fact that the instant machinery was delivered by the execution officer, and thus, the defense counsel’s allegation is rejected.

The reason for sentencing was that the Defendant had no record of so-called “property crime” before the crime of embezzlement of this case, and that the victim received deposit amounting to KRW 15 million from the Defendant.