A. In the process of misunderstanding of facts, the vehicle of this case was broken down due to the fault of the victim, and the victim did not request the return of the vehicle to the defendant during the repair process, and the victim did not return the vehicle to the victim because it did not pay the repair cost, and after the victim brought a civil lawsuit, the defendant demanded the victim to find the vehicle of this case several times, but the victim did not comply with it. Thus, there was no fact that the defendant refused the return of the vehicle of this case as stated in the charges

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel alleged the same assertion as the reasons for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the allegation and its decision in detail with the Defendant and the defense counsel under the title of “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. The defendant's refusal of the victim's request for return of crushing as stated in the facts charged in this case without any justifiable reason and the intention thereof can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the health belt and the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning. In addition to the circumstances set by the lower court, it may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions set by the lower court in the trial.