A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 January 15, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around January 30, 2015.

On November 6, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim C at the shop of the passenger car company located in Seongdong-dong 238-11, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, to pay the monthly rent of KRW 1,414,600 for the amount of KRW 53,00,000 at the market price owned by the victim, and received the said vehicle from the victim for 36 months.

On November 15, 2014, the Defendant kept the said vehicle for the victim, and sold the said vehicle to the victim of the victim of the vehicle at his own discretion at KRW 10,000,000,000.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A complaint, a vehicle registration certificate, a vehicle lease contract, a written estimate for operation lease, a written application for vehicle lease, a detailed statement of redemption before maturity, and a detailed statement of

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment of a copy of judgment), application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing (whether to apply the sentencing criteria) under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing) does not apply to the suspended sentence due to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. [Determination of sentence] The fact that the exercise of the right to estimate the instant vehicle by the victim company is virtually impossible due to the instant crime, making it virtually impossible to exercise the right to estimate the instant vehicle by the victim company, and that the damage has not been recovered up to

However, the defendant committed the crime in this case, and paid 17,038,000 won at the time of the lease contract, and was detained as the first head of the judgment, until November 2014.