A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 15, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 2 years of suspended execution and 300,000 won of a fine in six months of imprisonment with labor due to a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Suwon Friwon method, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 23, 2017.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) the self-reliance type type type type marl (UH60DLS) (hereinafter “instant machine”) owned by the Victim C (hereinafter “instant machine”).

On December 21, 2016, when entering into a lease agreement with the victim that set monthly rent of KRW 7 million and kept the instant machinery in C, the said agreement embezzled on December 21, 2016 by setting up a collateral security interest in movable property of KRW 320 million with respect to the said machinery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A certificate of matters to be registered as security of movable property, a written contract, details of each deposit transaction, a certificate, a mechanical lease contract, a detailed statement of deposit transaction, a detailed statement of each transaction, a document of seizure of movable property, receipt of a written complaint, a certified copy of each corporate registry, a certified copy of each corporate registry (E);

1. A previous conviction: A written inquiry about criminal history, a report on confirmation of latter concurrence, a report on the result of confirmation of the previous conviction of the disposition, and a written judgment (the defendant and his defense counsel, the defendant and the victim have prepared a certificate of ownership and a written lease agreement to the effect that the defendant and the victim create a security right (transfer) against the victim of the investment in the mechanical purchase price of this case. Since the defendant is the owner of the instant machine, embezzlement is not established.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to each of the following circumstances admitted as evidence, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he leased the instant machine from the damaged person who is the owner of the instant machine, the defendant's assertion against this is rejected.

① The Defendant and the victim on December 22, 2014 are owned by the victim.