However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 21, 2015, the Defendant received a loan from a lending company under the name of the husband of the victim B, and purchased Drocketing car and decided to repay the loan to the Defendant, and registered the ownership on October 22, 2015 as the Defendant had 9% equity interest in the said car, and the Defendant registered the ownership on August 22, 2015. On August 6, 2016, the Defendant died on the said C and was in custody of the said car for the victim, who is the inheritor, as the heir of the said C’s spouse, on March 26, 2017, and sold the said car with KRW 5 million at a non-commercial place from E around March 26, 2017, and consumed all the said car for personal purposes.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of B and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, the register of motor vehicles, the written commitment, the written confirmation of promise (verification of the storage place of a motor vehicle for a suspect), the investigation report (attached to data submitted for reference), the data submitted for reference, the investigation report (Attachment to the details of the suspect's account), the details of the account, the investigation report (Listening to the complainant's telephone statement, etc.), the data related to the

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) is that the instant crime was embezzled by disposing of a passenger car kept in custody for the victim, and the nature of the relevant crime is not weak, and that the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged and reflected, the fact that the damaged car appears to have been returned (However, the victim paid 5 million won to the damaged car possessor in the return process) and the defendant is subject to criminal punishment.