2. The instant case is a case in which the Defendant embezzled or refused to return a passenger car three times while the Defendant received and kept the car from the victims.

① Under favorable circumstances, the lower court sentenced a sentence as set forth in the above 1.1, comprehensively taking account of the following: (i) the Defendant divided a crime; (ii) there was no record of being sentenced to a heavier penalty than a fine; (iii) a passenger car of No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court was returned to the victim; (iv) the victim withdrawn the complaint by mutual agreement with the victim of the second crime; and (v) paid KRW 35,589,00 with the vehicle rent of the third crime as indicated in the judgment of the lower court; and (v) the frequency of the crime reaches three times and the total amount of damage reaches KRW 100 million.

In full view of the above various circumstances and other reasons for sentencing specified in the arguments and records, the lower court’s sentencing seems to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the defendant has not reached an agreement with the victim of the crime No. 3 in the decision of the court below, even if considering the above additional circumstances, it does not seem that the change of circumstances to the extent of changing the sentence of the court below, and there is no other special circumstance to the extent that the above additional circumstances would change.

Ultimately, the defendant's argument that the above sentencing is unfair is groundless and thus is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.