1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months;

2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around September 24, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, at the H office, which was operated by the Defendant, G 301 in Guro-gu Seoul, on the following terms: (a) one victim, one capital Co., Ltd., to pay lease amounting to KRW 33,590,30, and KRW 36 months, lease period; (b) 77,700 per month; and (c) a car is not provided as security to a third party without the victim’s written consent; (d) the Defendant was delivered from the victim on the same day; and (e) on January 9, 2013, J 301, J. 301, which was owned by the victim, J72.45,936,350, lease period, 36 months, lease period, 87,700, and 200 won for the same purpose, and (e) the Defendant did not provide the victim’s security to the third party without the victim’s consent.

While the Defendant kept two automobiles for the victim under a lease agreement, on February 2014, the Defendant delivered two automobiles to a person under his/her name as collateral without the consent of the victim. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant rejected the request from the victim for the return of the said automobiles due to the termination of the lease agreement, even though he/she failed to pay monthly rent and received the return of the said automobiles from the victim on October 28, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Notification of the scheduled termination of a lease agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to filing of a complaint, copy of a contract for leasing of facilities of a motor vehicle, summary of leasing of facilities of a motor vehicle, and copies of motor vehicle registration certificates;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. On the other hand, a commercial concurrent examination is deemed to constitute one embezzlement for a passenger car, and is charged as a substantive concurrent offense, but in the instant case, it infringes on the truster’s multiple vehicle ownership due to one act.