A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

From May 26, 2009 to December 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) leased one machine learning center owned by the victim from 2nd Capital Co., Ltd.; (b) leased one unit of CNC mining center owned by the victim from the victim CNS Co., Ltd.; (c) paid monthly rent from the victim CNSP Co., Ltd. to 370,000, while the Defendant kept the said machines for the victims, on July 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the said machines in a lump sum of KRW 120,000,000, and embezzled the said machines at around 63,70,000,000, in order for the company to pay the price to the defaulted party or its customer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Each complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to lease contracts, standard terms and conditions of lease contracts, and certificate of acceptance;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Although the sentencing criteria are not applicable to each of the above crimes on the grounds of the selective sentencing of the sentence, the sentencing criteria are not applicable to the ordinary concurrent crimes. However, the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the crime of embezzlement against the victim C&C risk Co., Ltd. should be considered as referring to the sentencing guidelines.

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 1 (1) (1) (1) (4) (4) (the basic area (4-1-1-4) (the special area) (1) (the person who does not have a sentence) (1) (the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant, even though the remaining lease charges for the embezzled machinery exceed 60 million won, the Defendant did not make every effort to recover victims from damage after the commission of the crime, and thus, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to have recognized and reflected the crime, and that there is no record of criminal punishment except for the criminal records of the fine of this kind once in 1995, and that the defendant is accused.