The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around November 23, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and Cenz S500 L car at KRW 36 months (from January 5, 2012 to December 6, 2014), monthly lease fee of KRW 2,447,000, and subsequently, the Defendant had the passenger car transferred from the victim and kept it for the victim.

In this regard, the defendant was indicted as D E on June 2013 for a bond company in the middle of 2013, but correction is made because it is obvious that D is a clerical error.

When receiving a loan from the recipient, the passenger car was transferred as security.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property amounting to 70,000,000 won in the market price.

2. Determination

A. First, as to whether the Defendant provided Cenz S50-L car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as collateral to the bond company as stated in the facts charged, the health of the Defendant. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies with the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt about the Defendant’s conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in this case, the witness F testified that “A witness F, as a police officer in charge, has lent the vehicle to the effect that he would temporarily use the vehicle, while investigating the defendant as a police officer under the charge of embezzlement, he/she took the same effect, but he/she considered it as having offered the vehicle as a security to borrow such statement and money.” However, the testimony alone is a security of the vehicle of this case.