On April 11, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim non-indicted 520d passenger cars owned by the victimized company, including monthly rent 1,197,775 won and lease period of 60 months, at the D office, the Defendant, a representative of the company located in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central Office C Building A, 403, around April 11, 2016, with the victim non-indicted 520d passenger cars owned by the victimized company, and embezzled it by arbitrarily transferring the amount equivalent to KRW 59,300,000 at the commercial non-parking parking lot located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoul, for the purpose of raising funds for the operation of the said D during the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Testimony of the F;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A H statement;

1. Complaint;

1. An application for operating lease, an automobile registration certificate, and a financial application;

1. Corporation registry and business registration certificate;

1. A certificate of seal imprint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a copy of passbook;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the criminal facts under Article 355(1) of the relevant statutory provisions regarding criminal facts [content of the assertion] The Defendant merely delivered a passenger car as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with the knowledge that the purchaser would acquire the status of the lessee under the lease contract and take over the obligation to pay the lease, by deceiving the partner I. As such, there was no intention of illegal acquisition or embezzlement.

[Judgment] In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, the defendant can at least recognize the fact that the defendant transferred the instant vehicle with knowledge that the purchaser of the instant vehicle did not accept the installment payment, and embezzled it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) The defendant shall become a damaged company.