Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

[2014 High 3071] The Defendant, who operated the Co., Ltd., was embezzled on July 31, 2012 by selling rent of KRW 2,68,260 on April 24, 2014 to E, while the Defendant was in custody of KRW 2,68,260 on April 24, 2014 while selling the said machinery to E in KRW 18 million on July 24, 2014.

[2014 high-level 3834] On February 8, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., 4 and 103 (the name of the machine model: VM560), and embezzled the property of the victim by selling the said machine to his name-disadvantageds for KRW 42 million around September 2012, on condition that the lease agreement was concluded with 36 months, monthly payment rate of KRW 1852,625, which is the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2014 High Court Decision 3071]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Lease contract, notification of transfer of lease contract, tallying report, details of planned preparation and receipt, and reimbursement of lease fees (2014 high-level 3834);

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the notification of termination of the contract, lease contract, and photographs of leased articles Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 355 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order shows that the defendant paid rent for a considerable period of time and the actual amount of damage of the victims appears to be less than the amount of the mechanical fee stated in the criminal facts. However, the victims did not recover from damage until now, and there is no special sentencing factor or change in circumstances that can be newly considered after the summary order.