E at the E office, the Defendant was aware of the difference of freight in the market price of the victim-owned G in 2003, which was operated by the victim F around March 2012.

H received curios equivalent to KRW 1.5 million at the market price and sold them to H.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim.

2. Summary of the victim and the defendant's assertion

A. On February 5, 2012, the injured party lent the instant truck to the Defendant. On March 10, 2012, the injured party returned the said truck from the Defendant and parked the truck on the emptyter at night on March 10, 2012.

On the next day, however, there was no vehicle due to the absence of the parking place.

On June 3, 2012, H discovered that he is operating the said vehicle and confirmed that H will start with the Defendant.

Therefore, after the defendant returned the above vehicle to the victim on March 10, 2012, the defendant promptly brought the above vehicle to H.

B. On December 22, 2011, the Defendant lent the instant truck to the injured party and returned it to the Defendant. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant lent the instant truck to H on May 2012 while he/she used it.

3. Determination

A. The name of the crime constituting the facts charged in the instant case is “Embezzlement” and the summary thereof is that “the Defendant sold the vehicle that he/she lent from the injured party to H without the consent of the injured party.”

B. The principal agent of embezzlement should be the custodian of another’s property. In order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant should be recognized as custodian, namely, “the Defendant’s status as custodian of the instant truck owned by the victim.”

In addition, the custody of property in embezzlement means the actual or legal control over the property.