Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 23, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement for the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.’s No. 2 and operated at the 2nd permanent resident registry of the Dong-gu Dong-dong Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

C In lieu of lease fees, the car was acquired under the condition that the car is paid in lieu of lease fees.

When the Defendant failed to pay rent of KRW 12 million while operating the said car, and was unable to repay the loan of KRW 12 million from C, the Defendant was willing to lend money to C as security as proposed by C.

On December 2, 2017, while the Defendant kept the said car on behalf of the victim, the Defendant borrowed KRW 7 million from the name in the name in which the said C was introduced by the Defendant, thereby building the said car as security.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the car owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report on witnesses C telephone communications;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is erroneous that the defendant committed the crime of this case in the period of repeated crime due to the same criminal record. However, the defendant is not only aware of and against the crime, but also is deemed to have discharged the full amount of lease-related obligations to the victim (Mo Capital Capital Co., Ltd.). Accordingly, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant any longer.

In addition to these circumstances, the Defendant did not directly conclude a lease contract with the victim or succeed to the contract, but was merely an act of keeping the instant vehicle for the victim under the good faith principle or sound reasoning, and the motive, background, age of the Defendant’s crime, and the Defendant’s age.