A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

around January 15, 2018, the Defendant paid 85 million won at the market price owned by C Co., Ltd. owned by the victim B, which is equivalent to the 85 million won per month, and 1.48,000 won per month at the lease rate of 1.5 million won per month, to use the said vehicle by the victim, and received the said vehicle from the victim.

On March 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 6 million from E to use the said vehicle as gambling funds at an influorial gambling place located in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu; (b) provided the said vehicle to E for the purpose of securing the loan, and (c) provided the said vehicle to E for the purpose of securing the loan.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzleds another person's goods in custody for the victim.

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a FK5 car.

1. Around January 22, 2019, the Defendant was driving the said vehicle without obtaining a driver’s license in the section of about 2 km from the 2km road near the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Station to the roads near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

2. On January 22, 2019, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”) driven the said K5-lane at a point where the new distribution height in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G end, and proceeded at a speed that would not be known by three-lanes in the direction of new distribution distance from the new distribution distance.

Since there is a space where a white-ray is installed, a person engaged in driving service shall not change the course, and even if it is inevitable to change the course, there was a duty of care that should not interfere with the passage of vehicles in the lane intended to change the course by giving an advance notice of change of course by direction direction, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant, while driving along the three-lanes of the above three-lanes of the road, did not well see the side lane in the white solid line, and changed the Gap self-ray by negligence in the course of business.