Inasmuch as the custody of the property in embezzlement in the judgment of embezzlement as to the argument of misunderstanding legal principles refers to the state of de facto or legal control over the property, the custody should be based on the consignment relationship, as well as the management of affairs, customs, cooking, and the good faith principle without any need to be established by a contract such as the lending of use, lease, delegation, etc.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, even if the defendant had each damaged article (hereinafter "victimd article") as stated in the judgment of the court below with the knowledge that the damaged article was in possession of the wife, the defendant was aware that the damaged article was not in possession of the wife at least at the time when H or the damaged person was demanded to return from the wife, and the defendant India investigative agency considered that "the damaged article was E from the victim's side and necessary for reporting value added tax, etc." and returned it.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that he was in the position of a person who keeps the above damaged goods in accordance with the principle of good faith.

must be viewed.

On the other hand, the criminal intent of embezzlement does not require sufficient and economic benefits if there is a perception that a person who possesses another person's property controls and disposes of it as his own property contrary to the purpose of the entrustment.

Therefore, as long as the defendant refused to request the return of the victim and continued to keep the damaged goods, the defendant is the same as his own property.