A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant entered into a contract with the said E office around December 23, 2013, when he operated the Manufacturing Business Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., (hereinafter “E”), on the following terms: (a) around December 23, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D D-L 1 unit of QUTTRO, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000; (b) KRW 32,000,000,000,000 in the market price, including KRW 3 unit of machinery equivalent to KRW 19,000,000,000,000,000 for KRW 5.1.1.3%, deposit money, KRW 30,366,896, on the condition that ownership of the said machinery is transferred in full to the Defendant; and (c) the ownership of the said machinery is transferred to the Defendant.

In accordance with the terms and conditions of the above contract, while the Defendant kept three of the above machinery owned by the victim for the victim in the above E workplace, on February 2014, the Defendant sold 10 million won for the above rash-110 million won to the “F,” and around October 2016, 32 million won for the above presses HCA-160-11, respectively.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled by selling at will one rasher and one presses, which is the victim's possession of a total of KRW 162 million in the market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness G and H’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (documents attached to the police interrogation protocol and the above interrogation protocol);

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion in the petition for accusation (and documents attached thereto)

1. In the case of a rash-rating machine, the main point of the argument was that it should be replaced because it does not comply with the purpose and specifications of the use, and the press machine was disposed of upon contact with the victim’s employees to the effect that the secured value would not be increased by the victim’s employees. As such, it does not constitute embezzlement or there was no intention of embezzlement.

2. According to each evidence of the judgment, the Defendant and the victim agreed to “the injured party’s prior written consent while entering into the instant lease agreement.”