A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 8, 2013, the Defendant concluded a siren agreement on the condition that the Defendant would pay for 2 years the amount of KRW 4,69,860 per month from the victim non-n&n case capital Co., Ltd. (former company name: non-SP capital) at the E office located in Seosan-si, Inc. (former company name: non-SP capital).

Before full payment of the price was made, the Defendant kept the pressure exit equipment for the victim, and embezzled the pressure exit equipment at the office E of the said corporation around May 2013, by arbitrarily disposing of it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor with respect to F and G by the prosecution;

1. Some statements made to H or I in each police interrogation protocol;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on a siren contract;

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act is not the custodian of the instant pressure exit, but the Defendant’s defense counsel replaced the Defendant with the same or superior pressure exit with the consent of the victim company, and thus, there was no criminal intent of embezzlement.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the evidence adopted by this court, the defendant, as the actual operator of E, a corporation leasing the pressure plant of this case, can be found to have disposed of by arbitrarily replacing the pressure plant of this case with another pressure outlet without the victim company's permission, even though he was well aware that the ownership of the pressure plant of this case is reserved to the victim company. Thus, the defendant's intent of embezzlement against the pressure plant of this case can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing is against the defendant's wrong, the fact that the defendant has agreed smoothly with the victim company, the defendant has no record of the same crime, and the age, environment of the defendant.