A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On October 19, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court, and the judgment was finalized on March 9, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 22, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 12,863,00 to the victim D Co., Ltd. and EMW520D car in the name of Cheongju-si, and entered into a lease contract with KRW 1,674,686 to pay monthly rent for 36 months, and received the said car from the victim company.

While the Defendant kept the said car for the victim, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Daegu Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu F to G on April 2014, and opened the said car as a collateral.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and H;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A written statement of I;

1. The complaint, the register of automobiles, the written confirmation of contract, the fact certificate, and the D Operational Lease Agreement;

1. Investigation report (to G telephone conversations for reference);

1. Previouss prior to the ruling: Criminal history records, the accused of the judgment, and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that, upon C’s request, the Defendant was aware of the secured loan of the instant car and that there was no embezzlement of the said car.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., ① when the Defendant entered into the instant car lease contract under the name of C and CJ, the Defendant made a relatively specific and consistent statement that the Defendant would pay the lease fee to the corporation established after the lease, ② H made a request to K and the Defendant to inquire about the place where the instant vehicle would be offered as security and borrowed money to him/her, and the Defendant stated that L was introduced. In full view of the facts stated in the judgment of the Defendant, it is recognized that the instant car was put to G as security.

Therefore, it is necessary.