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 of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On January 29, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on January 29, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 6, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 6, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for automobile lease with the victim D Co., Ltd. and the victim acquisition cost amounting to KRW 72,296,90 with respect to the EMW car in Gangnam-gu Office located in Seoul. Around January 6, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D Co., Ltd. with the terms of contract period of KRW 36 months, monthly rent of KRW 1,782,400

While the Defendant kept the said car on behalf of the victim, the Defendant paid approximately 15 minutes of lease from February 6, 201 to March 6, 2012. On March 2012, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from F, a counseling staff member for police officers, and provided the said car arbitrarily for the purpose of securing this.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A motor vehicle lease contract, information on termination of a lease contract, certified copy or abstract of the motor vehicle register, deposit statement, statement of temporary payment settlement, and comprehensive consultation on arrears;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification of criminal records of the same kind of embezzlement), judgment, previous records of disposition, and report on results of confirmation and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Criminal Act is against the defendant, and the crime of this case is against the principle of equity in the case of concurrent crimes with the previous conviction on which the judgment has become final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The defendant renounces his vehicle and pays 20 million won to the victim, and pays 10 million won among them, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, etc. are shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.