Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the actual operator of G Co., Ltd. located in Jung-gu, Incheon, 309 Dong 103, and Defendant B is the representative in the name of G.

Defendant

A, on February 28, 2011, concluded a lease contract with a social company and H Heget vehicle that took place in the name of the victim Republic of Korea in the name of the above B, and discussed with the defendant B by lending money to the above vehicle as collateral because the financial standing of the company is difficult.

Accordingly, on September 18, 2012, the Defendants borrowed KRW 30 million from G to I and delivered the said vehicle to I as collateral.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the above-mentioned vehicle owned by the victim in the amount of KRW 39 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol of suspect examination of I by the prosecution;

1. Statement to J police officers;

1. Application of the lease contract, the register of automobiles, the power of attorney, etc. (number 2), the details of passbook transactions (number 5), the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment for the crime: Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the community service order: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommendations) [the scope of recommendations] shall be the basic area (4 months to 1 year and 4 months) of embezzlement (100 million won).

2. Determination of sentence: (a) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not much significant; (b) the Defendants did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendants; (c) the Defendants recognized the Defendants’ mistake and reflects; and (d) the Defendants did not have any identical criminal record; and (c) the Defendants did not have any identical criminal record; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, details of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered as favorable to the Defendants; and (e) the judgment is