In the crime of embezzlement, the term "the intention of unlawful acquisition" means the intention to dispose of another's property in breach of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). “Refusal to return” in the crime of embezzlement refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the custodian. As such, the crime of embezzlement is not established solely on the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return the property, and the act of refusal to return should be deemed as the same as the act of embezzlement, even if the refusal to return is sufficient to deem the same as the act of embezzlement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7637 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s refusal to return each of the above deficiencies did not constitute embezzlement, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the facts charged that the Defendant refused to return it and embezzled it without justifiable grounds despite the Defendant’s demand for return on three points of the victim’s non-ownership kept by him/her.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.