횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
As long as the Defendant actually occupied the instant visible vehicle and managed and used it, even if he/she formally resigned from the representative director of J (hereinafter “J”) of the Defendant, the Defendant constitutes “a person who keeps another’s property.”
B. The Defendant is aware of the fact that the deposit that can be returned at the time of receiving the notice of termination of each of the instant lease contracts remains, and the Defendant continued to use the vehicle for the convenience of the Defendant, and there is no justifiable reason to refuse the return, and thus, the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized.
2. Determination
A. A. A summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) On March 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) leased KRW 57,100,00 at the market value of one F deemed vehicle owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant deemed vehicle”); (b) KRW 44 months until November 4, 2014; (c) was delivered with the instant deemed vehicle and kept for the victim on the same day from August 1, 2012 to KRW 1,414,90; and (d) the Defendant did not pay the leased fee of KRW 10,50 to KRW 10,50,000,00 from August 2, 201 to October 2, 2012; and (d) was asked to return the instant vehicle by mail, telephone, etc.; and (e) the Defendant embezzled the instant vehicle from KRW 10,500 to KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 14,00,000.