1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of embezzlement around October 14, 2015 is as follows: “The Defendant agreed from the victim, using the name of F around April 8, 2013, one of the victim, to set an agreement for 48 months for MA7 car owned by the victim company from the victim capital Co., Ltd. to lease the said car to the victim company, and kept and operated the said car.

On October 14, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million fromO in the Defendant’s office located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and embezzled the said vehicle by arbitrarily offering it as security at the victim’s market price of KRW 70 million.

“” is:

2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court agreed to allowO to exclude the ownership of the victim company and dispose of the vehicle itself to a third party or to vest it as owned by theO, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million fromO and did not repay the borrowed money at the time of offering the said vehicle as security.

It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s right to use a car as a lessee and the right to dispose of the leased deposit claims can be deemed to be merely delegated to theO.

On the other hand, the defendant's intent to illegally obtain the above facts charged was not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(1) In light of the police and the first instance court’s consideration of the lease deposit, lease fee, and lease fee repayment period of the said car, theO, if the Defendant did not pay the loan, would be able to collect the loan even if the vehicle was disposed of after repayment of the remaining lease fee to the victim company.

After being detained in the instant case, the Defendant stated that F shall succeed to the lease agreement for the said car to a third party and requested F to repay the borrowed money.

(2) TheO arbitrarily commits the car against a third party.