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

The Defendant is a person who has run a used car sales business under the trade name of “B.”

On December 2015, the Defendant received a request from the Vice Minister D of the Victim C (State) Busan Branch to sell a large-scale cargo vehicle with a face value of KRW 53 million owned by the victim E E, which is equivalent to the market value of KRW 53 million. On the 23th of the same month, the Defendant received delivery of the said vehicle from G located in Ulsan-gun F, Ulsan-gun.

Nevertheless, on the 28th day of the same month, the Defendant borrowed money from the (ju) 15 U.S. Doo-gu Doo-gu Busan City branch, and provided the above vehicle as security and consumed the borrowed money at will.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the contents of currency in which the complainant is the vice head);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 355 (1) and 355 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] are against the basic area (4 months to one year and four months) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision subject to sentencing] [the decision subject to special sentencing], there is no record of the same type of crime, damage amount of the crime in this case, damage recovery and the damage does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the decision subject to the suspended sentence shall be determined as per the order.