A. The Defendant does not have received a request from the victim for the return of the vehicle, nor does he refuse to return the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s refusal to return the vehicle from the victim can be recognized, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of mistake of facts is rejected.

① When entering into a lease agreement with the victim, the Defendant agreed to pay lease fees of KRW 1,833,400 per month, but the Defendant paid lease fees of KRW 1,83,400 per month. However, on May 25, 2013, employees of the victim who did not pay the lease fees of KRW 1,83,400 per month were urged to pay the lease fees by telephone from the Defendant on May 28, 2013.

② After that, the Defendant did not receive the phone from the employee of the victim without paying the lease fee, and the employee C of the victim notified on June 20, 2013 that the lease contract will be terminated on June 25, 2013, if the Defendant did not pay the lease fee while in currency with the Defendant. The Defendant notified that the vehicle should be returned to the victim upon termination of the lease contract.

③ Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay rent, and C notified the Defendant of June 28, 2013 that the lease contract was terminated and the vehicle should be returned.

④ Nevertheless, the Defendant did not return the vehicle to the victim, and the victim attempted to contact but did not receive any contact.

B. The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is above the suspension of execution.