When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On October 15:00 on October 10, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim C(the age of 27) to pay KRW 100,000,000 per month rent to the victim for the D rocketing car owned by the victim(the age of 27).

The Defendant, upon entering into a lease agreement as above, paid the first rent to the victim, and did not fully pay the subsequent rent to the victim while being transferred the said vehicle for the victim. On October 2018, the Defendant offered the said vehicle as security by borrowing KRW 3 million from E to the police officer during the mid-2018. On November 13, 2018, the Defendant refused to return the said vehicle even if requested by the victim for the return of the said vehicle.

Accordingly, the suspect embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning filing of a complaint, closure photographs and contract;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months for embezzlement, etc. at the Incheon District Court on July 21, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive. Taking into account all the circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period, which is of significant responsibility; (b) the Defendant was punished for embezzlement; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant’s mistake is recognized and against the Defendant; (d) the victim was not punished by agreement with the victim; and (e) the Defendant was not subject to criminal investigation for embezzlement; (e) the Defendant has been investigated into the vehicle as security; (e) most of the Defendant was at issue related to