Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for six months, respectively.

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 4, 2016, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A to the effect that the Plaintiff may terminate the lease agreement and claim the return of the leased vehicle, and that the lessee may claim the return of the leased vehicle if the lessee fails to pay the lease fee. The lessee entered into the lease agreement to the effect that: (a) KRW 3,870,740,000 of the cost of acquisition of the victim and KRW 217,770,000; (b) KRW 60,000 of the lease period; and (c) KRW 60,000 of the lease period; and (d) KRW 3,870,740 of the lease period; and (e) KRW 60,000 of the lease period; and (e) the lessee was delivered the said vehicle.

On February 23, 2017, while the Defendant kept the said car on behalf of the victim company, he borrowed 30 million won from H in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and embezzled the said car by arbitrarily transferring it as security.

2. Defendant B

A. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, to lend money from A to the victim Non-Bable Social Services Korea (State) that he had entered into a lease agreement with Korea; and (b) borrowed money to provide the victim-owned G MU Ra as a security; (c) knowingly, he borrowed KRW 30 million to him with knowledge that the said car is a stolen; and (d) received the said car as a security and received the stolen goods as the “the custody of stolen goods”; (c) but (d) if the de facto right to dispose of the stolen goods as a security is transferred to the acquisitor, the crime of acquiring stolen goods is established.

It is changed ex officio because only the legal evaluation differs, and there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense.

was made.

B. On June 9, 2017, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act: (a) from Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju to the Office of Education located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju to the 93-ro, Seo-gu Office of Education, the Defendant operated Jununst sports vehicles not covered by mandatory insurance at the 1.9km section.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements 1.