Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below's decision which acquitted the Defendants of the facts that the Defendants conspired to embezzlement of the instant car as stated in the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Defendant B participated in the management of the company at around November 201, in investing KRW 230,000 in Defendant E Co., Ltd., the management of the company. However, around April 2012, Defendant B demanded the return of the investment amount to Defendant A, who was difficult to maintain the partnership with the management of the company.

Defendant

B At that time, Defendant A confirmed that there was no ability for Defendant A to return the cash of the Party, and suggested Defendant A to provide a high-priced passenger car under the name of the said Company as a collateral for the obligation to return the cash of the investment. The consent was obtained from Defendant A.

Defendant

A, in accordance with the above crime plan on April 13, 2012, under the name of Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Fridi vehicle 8,450,000 won for lease deposit, lease period of 36 months, monthly lease fee of 2,290,500 won, and around April 16, 2012, A accepted the above car and kept it for the victim. At that time, the said car was arbitrarily dryed to Defendant B as a security for the obligation to return the investment deposit.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to embezzled one set of car in the amount of KRW 84.5 million at the market price owned by the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.

The lower court’s judgment is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A was to have delivered a vehicle as a security for Defendant B’s obligation with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and considering the Defendants’ terms and conditions of the agreement on the leased vehicle of this case, the Defendants used the leased vehicle to Defendant B under the same circumstances as the instant case.