All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s refusal to deliver a master bill of lading to the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in relation to Defendant (1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (A) occupational embezzlement is justifiable since it was a kind of exercise of the right of retention, and thus, the above exercise of the right of retention is justifiable.

As long as the bill of lading was issued, as long as the bill of lading was issued, the defendant was unable to dispose of the cargo at his own discretion, so there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition for the defendant.

(B) As to occupational breach of trust, the Defendant did not pay the fare immediately upon arrival of the cargo, but there were many cases where the consignee paid the cargo at the time when the consignee would recover the cargo, and even in this case, there was no intention in breach of trust of the Defendant, and there was no fact that there was no loss, such as delayed delivery of the cargo due to the Defendant.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Although it is reasonable to view that the act of a prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles that the victim company still made a false vindication that the victim company would load the cargo through the victim company F constitutes "a deceptive scheme", the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by both parties

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s refusal to deliver a bill of lading as stated in the lower judgment.