All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserting the misunderstanding of facts does not have received notification of the termination of the lease contract from the social Korea Co., Ltd. and the return of two automobiles from the victim’s Alcia Co., Ltd.

In addition, there is insufficient evidence that the defendant provided SM5 car to U for the purpose of security.

Therefore, the first instance court which found the Defendant guilty of the crime No. 1 of the first instance judgment that rejected the request for return and embezzled the two vehicles for the said vehicle. There is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing returned all the automobiles embezzled to the victim.

The defendant was unable to attend the trial due to the failure to pay a fine of 20,000 won imposed on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thus, the defendant could be detained if present at the trial.

The defendant's crime is all a living-oriented crime.

In full view of these points, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 8, 2010, the prosecutor entered into a lease contract (A) with respect to a vehicle of 25,768,273 (E) with a lessee as a user at the first floor Samsung Motor Co., Ltd. of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B at the location of Samsung Motor Co., Ltd., Ltd., the victim A, and the defendant as a representative director at the location of the defendant as a joint guarantor, and the amount of 25,768,273 (E) with the defendant as a representative director at the location of 25,79,000 won.

After the Defendant received a car in accordance with the above lease agreement, the Defendant embezzled the said car from the middle to the lower order of March 2010 to the U.S. creditor of the Defendant for the purpose of securing the loan amounting to KRW 15 million.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment” was filed, and this Court permitted this, thereby changing the subject of the judgment of the first instance court to the relevant judgment.

In addition, each judgment of the court below is pronounced and the defendant is respectively.