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

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

On December 28, 2012, the Defendant purchased C 25 tons truck with Korea Commercial 25 tons, concluded a land entry contract with the victim limited liability company, and registered the ownership of the said truck in the name of the victim company.

On the other hand, on April 18, 2013, the Defendant purchased creams to be installed on the above truck, and borrowed KRW 90 million from the new galth Capital Co., Ltd., and as a security, established a mortgage on the amount of KRW 90 million from the debtor, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the bond value of the above truck, and around that time, installed the said cream on the above truck.

On June 17, 2014, while the defendant kept the above truck for the victim, he/she borrowed 50 million won from his/her name in the E-motor vehicle trade world D at the Yanancheon-si, and embezzled the truck by delivering it as a collateral.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness F;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the motor vehicle register and the defense counsel

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant, as a branch owner of C-Japan 25 tons truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), received KRW 50,000,000 from a person who was unaware of the name in order to sell the instant vehicle with the consent of the Kocheon-gu Office Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”), who is a branch owner, in order to sell the instant vehicle with the consent of the Defendant, but the Defendant asserts that the instant vehicle was not concluded, and that the person who was unaware of the name had been arbitrarily possessed the instant vehicle, and that there was no intent to commit embezzlement.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, in the investigative agency and this court, the F stated that the Defendant offered the instant vehicle as security by borrowing KRW 50 million from a person who has no name, and the Defendant provided it as security. The content of the statement is consistent and specific, and it is believed that it is consistent and specific, whereas the Defendant provided the victim company with the victim company.