Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the defendants are above two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was the representative director of E, and Defendant B was the representative director of Defendant A.

In addition, a person who served in F corporation in another company is a person.

Defendant

A, on August 20, 2013, at the office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, concluded a contract for vehicle lease with the victim Eul, and was in custody of the victim HJ HF vehicle, which is the victim's possession. On February 20, 2015, Defendant B borrowed money from around I, with the permission of the defendant A, and provided the above vehicle as security.

On January 3, 2015, the Defendants refused to return the said vehicle because the lease contract was terminated on April 3, 2015 and demanded the return of the said vehicle from the injured party. However, on February 2, 2015, the Defendants already offered the said vehicle to I as security.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled XF vehicles owned by the victim, which amounted to KRW 60,900,000 at the market price.

[1. According to the lease agreement on Defendant B’s assertion, since the ownership of the instant vehicle is in the case capital, Defendant B’s offering the instant vehicle to a third party without the said case’s consent is an embezzlement that infringes on ownership.

Defendant

As A takes place in the situation where funds are needed, since the Defendants discussed with each other, offered the said vehicle as collateral and borrowed money to I, the embezzlement act has already been completed. Even if the Defendants refused to comply with the above request for return of the said vehicle by the said K non Capital, this constitutes an ex post facto act of punishment, as it does not add any new risk of infringement of infringement of legal interests or result in infringement of legal interests (i.e., Defendant A, who was authorized to use the said vehicle, operated the said vehicle by the Defendant A, thereby constituting embezzlement.