A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On February 7, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution in Seoul Central District Court due to fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2014.

On November 17, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Defendant, at the office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D”, the representative F, E Co., Ltd., to transfer a motor vehicle within four months, under which F used a lease contract with the victim Aju Capital Co., Ltd., the Defendant (hereinafter “D”), and received a single unit of the said motor vehicle in the amount of KRW 51,197,675 at the market price.

The Defendant: (a) transferred the said vehicle to H without F’s consent, and (b) received a request from H to provide a vehicle as security, and (c) borrowed KRW 30 million from J at the Seocho-gu Seoul International Building around February 2012, and delivered the said vehicle as security, while borrowing KRW 30 million from J at the Seocho-gu Seoul International Building.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the car owned by another person in collusion with H.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and J;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination of the accused (including substitute part);

1. A detailed passbook;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, Seoul Central District Court Decisions 2013Da1858 and 2014No844, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant’s legal statement (the fourth trial date) in this court; i.e., (i) the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to H and offered it as security; (ii) the Defendant directly delivered the instant vehicle to J; (iii) the Defendant directly received loans of KRW 30 million from J; and (iv) the Defendant appears to have been well aware of the situation of H at the time; and (iv) the Defendant took full account of the foregoing macro-made evidence.