In addition, even if L is not the custodian of the instant house, the Defendant was entitled to dispose of the instant house to L.

A reasonable ground was found to believe that this case was disposed of as a legitimate exercise of rights.

Since I think, the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court: (a) held that Lone’s custody was entrusted to the victim; and

It is difficult to view that the Defendant had kept the instant house for the victim since the time when the Defendant changed the locking device of the amusement shop.

In light of the fact that embezzlement was established against the defendant.

① On November 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim on the amusement drinking points, and concluded a lease agreement with the victim to determine the name of the business operator on the amusement drinking points to be the subsequent L, and accordingly, drafted the lease agreement with the victim as the lessee, and the lease agreement with L as the lessee.

② L retired from office as an employee for a month after the commencement of the amusement shop business, but L went to an end. However, the name of the business operator was left as it was and the victim would receive compensation for the use of the name.

③ The victim failed to pay rent, etc. to the Defendant, who was not well-grounded in entertainment establishments. From September 2015 to October 2015, the victim actually discontinued the business of entertainment establishments.

④ On November 2015, the Defendant demanded L to transfer the name of an entertainment shop business operator to L, and paid 10 million won in return, and changed the name of the business operator to E designated by the Defendant.

(5) L.