According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, at least, the defendants could be found to have refused the request of the representative director F of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim Co., Ltd.") to return the instant case in collusion with I, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

Judgment

The following additional circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance, namely, ① at the court of first instance, the F requested that the Defendants return the instant vehicle only to I until the last day of the instant vehicle, and even at the end of March, 2010, the Defendants did not appear to have been at all, and ② at the court of first instance G, a driver of the instant vehicle, stated that the instant vehicle would not have been at all, unless the Defendants prove that the instant vehicle was owned by the victimized company, but the Defendants did not make such statement, apart from the time and time indicated in the instant facts charged, the Defendants did not agree with the Defendants, ③ the Defendants did not appear to have agreed with the Defendants, and the Defendants did not appear to have been in possession of the instant vehicle, and the Defendants did not appear to have been in charge of removing the instant vehicle as the husband of the instant case, and ④ the Defendants were in charge of collecting the instant vehicle at the auction procedure, and the Defendants did not appear to have been in possession of the instant vehicle.