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

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim Kti Capital Co., Ltd. and the victim's vehicle for the passenger car 2.0 passengers in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, with the total amount of KRW 40,583,130,130, and each month 1,039,800, and kept the vehicle for the victim.

However, on September 2013, the Defendant delegated F with the sale of the said car to F in order to raise funds for the Defendant’s operating company, and transferred the said car to F in excess of KRW 37,905,000 at the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Comprehensive details of vehicles;

1. A motor vehicle lease agreement, the details of payment of the motor vehicle lease agreement, the specifications of the motor vehicle lease agreement, and the terms and conditions of the lease;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning automobile trade, order, and certified copy of corporate registry;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Orders;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) basic area (from April to January 1) (no person subject to special sentencing)

2. As a result of the instant crime committed by the Defendant’s decision to sentence sentence, the victim of the vehicle appears to have failed to recover the vehicle up to now, and due to the nature of the vehicle in which its value sharply decreased as the time has passed, it seems that considerable damage has occurred as the victim was unable to exercise its ownership

Nevertheless, the Defendant is only aware of the difficult circumstances and does not seem to fully endeavor to recover the damage of the victim.

However, prior to the instant case, the Defendant did not have the same criminal history.

The damage of the victim is increasing because it is not possible to find the F that the defendant delegates the sale at present.