However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the above sentence shall be executed.

Defendant

B around June 2013, the victim, who had been operating with C in the past, did not pay the EST7 installments from the victim D who had been operating with C in the past, provided that “I would have to transfer the vehicle to one capital,” and that “I would have a contact with the victim to return the vehicle to one capital if I had the vehicle as C office.”

After that, Defendant B, with the knowledge that Defendant A, an employee, needs money for individual rehabilitation, proposed that Defendant A receive a loan on the said vehicle as security and used it for individual rehabilitation, and Defendant A accepted it.

Defendant

B A around July 8, 2013, while receiving the above vehicle from the victim and keeping it, B borrowed 4 million won from the non-surved borrower who had contacted the defendant A in advance and provided the above vehicle at will as security at the market price of 18 million won.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the said vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Articles 355 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution (in the case of a defendant B, there is no criminal records, and there is no record of punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime or fine in the case of a defendant A, the defendants are divided by mistake, and the agreement is reached with a victim);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of each community service order;