A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract to lend the amount of KRW 17 million equivalent to the market price of the DF station or other car owned by the victimized company through C through the employees C of the DaF station or other car owned by the victimized company at the time prior to the MF station in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victimized company.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statement by the prosecution against C;

1. The Defendant asserts that no crime of embezzlement is established because he/she extended the lease contract and used the lease fee by extending the lease contract. However, according to each of the above evidence, even though the contract period was extended after the lease of the vehicle for one month on December 2, 2015, the Defendant did not refund the vehicle even if the victim requested the return of the vehicle due to the extension of the contract period after the lease of the vehicle. The above argument by the Defendant is without merit).

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of criminal punishment, and the amount of damage caused by embezzlement on the grounds of sentencing chosen to imprisonment was not recovered, and the Defendant did not endeavor to recover the damage until

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into consideration such circumstances, the age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, the circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.