A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 9, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Ulsan District Court on February 17, 2012.

On November 2, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim C at the office of Jung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, from the victim C, and until January 2, 2012, the Defendant paid the victim KRW 100 million between the victim and the victim, the Defendant shall provide the victim with 42 tons of the Switzerland lease, which is owned by the Defendant, as security for transfer.

“A notarized the No. 2390 of the No. 201 of the No. 2011 of the No. 201 of the No. 201 of the Securities Loan Agreement to the purport that “A. 43 million won has been repaid to the victim on January 3, 2012, which continued to maintain the relationship of the said monetary loan contract by borrowing it again.

Therefore, the Defendant had a duty not only to keep the 150 million won market price offered as a security by means of transfer until he pays 100 million won to the victim, but also to reduce the value of the security by disposing of it.

Nevertheless, on January 16, 2012, the Defendant violated his duties and brought the said lecture board to the F by taking advantage of the car in the south-gu Busan Metropolitan City E, Ulsan Metropolitan City on January 16, 2012, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits of KRW 1.50 million and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A copy of a notarial deed;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. The reason for sentencing of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code dealing with concurrent crimes is the victim's degree of damage caused by the act in this case, and the amount of the debt amount of KRW 40 million actually used by F, the representative of G, a corporation that is the actual principal owner of the instant lecture board, is the Defendant, and the lecture board of this case is the Defendant.