A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around January 29, 2013, the Defendant, at a D agency located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded a contract for facility leasing (lease) with the victim company of Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd., and embezzled by refusing to return the said vehicle from September 16, 2013, even if the Defendant had requested the return of the said vehicle from the victim company on the following grounds: 32,890,000 won: 48 months; and the payment date: 25 days per month; and the monthly rent: 69,500 won: while operating the said vehicle on the delivery of the said vehicle, the Defendant delayed the lease fee on June 18, 2013, and embezzled the said vehicle without justifiable grounds.

2. The Defendant is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim F.

At around 17:00 on August 15, 2014, the Defendant requested the victim to talk with each other at the office of the first floor of the Hju station in the operation of the victim in G in Namyang-si, and the victim to talk with each other, and the victim to move out without any justifiable reason even after receiving a request from the victim to move out of the office.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Copy of the application for modern Capital Lease; and

1. A copy of registration certificate;

1. A copy of a motor vehicle lease termination statement (the fact of paragraph (2) at the time of sale);

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the F Statements;

1. Relevant Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with labor, respectively;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes, asserts that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol dependence (e.g., alcohol memory disorder, memory memory, degradation of judgment, etc.) at the time of the crime of this case.

According to the records, the defendant's proof of alcohol alcohol exists on January 27, 2012.