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

The defendant is a person who actually operated the C Company in the main body manufacturing business in Kimpo-si B.

On April 17, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim C&A Co., Ltd., and with 36 months of lease term, the Defendant entered into the lease agreement with 60,200,00,000, monthly rent of 2,172,500, and 36 months of lease term as to the eight-month machinery, which is a wooden machine owned by the victim, including one Soviet, one colon, two with a set of presses, half with a set of members of a group, half with a female stringr, one with a watchling machine, one with a vertical monitoring machine, and one with a vertical monitoring machine at the above C&A office.

On August 2015, while the Defendant kept the said machinery for the victim, the Defendant arbitrarily sold it to D, which is a manufacturer of another kitchen body, and embezzled it in approximately KRW 60 million, while the unpaid rent of KRW 29,011,956 remains.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A complaint, facility leasing contract, notification of termination of a general lease contract, or a certificate of receipt of an article;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of sale amount of wooden machinery);

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act [the scope of recommending punishment] Type 1 (less than 100 million won) and the basic area (4 months to 100 million won) [the decision of sentencing] of the Defendant’s embezzled goods] (the decision of sentence] the value of the goods embezzled by the Defendant is not substantial, unfavorable factors such as disadvantageous sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, favorable sentencing factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and all other circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, shall