On February 5, 2015, while the Defendant kept the instant vehicle for the victimized Company, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred the instant vehicle to the name in the name in the future transactional relationship of the victimized Company without the consent of the victimized Company in the vicinity of the U.S. Sinsan-si.

2. Although the Defendant and the defense counsel allowed D to temporarily use the instant vehicle, as the rent for the instant vehicle was overdue, and thereafter, the Defendant demanded D to return the instant vehicle. Since D cannot return the instant vehicle to the damaged company because it was inevitably impossible for D to arbitrarily provide another person, the Defendant did not intend to acquire unlawful acquisition of the instant vehicle.

3. In light of the overall purport of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant entered into a contract for the lease of automobile facilities (Operation Lease) with the victimized Company on September 18, 2014 to pay the monthly rent of KRW 1,912,300 for the instant vehicle, and ② D, around February 5, 2015, after obtaining permission for the use of the instant vehicle from the Defendant, provided the instant vehicle to G without the Defendant’s consent, on the ground that traffic inconvenience is difficult to take over the F in the city of Hasan, due to the circumstance that: ③ the Defendant would normally pay the lease fee and would no longer pay the lease fee after entering the legal management around April 2016; and the victimized Company would be in arrears with the Defendant on June 29, 2016.