The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement because it was later planned to find it later at the time of providing the instant leased vehicle as security.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 1, 2018, the Defendant is the representative director of the instant facts charged. On or around February 1, 2018, at the office of the victim D Co., Ltd. located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the said victim’s employees and the victim’s victim’s employees to pay KRW 90,124,294 as to the E New Dricker’s car; (b) concluded a lease agreement with the victim’s employees from February 1, 2018 to August 23, 202, to pay KRW 1,685,80 each month for 55 months from August 23, 202; and (c) while the said vehicle was delivered to the victim and kept for the victim, the Defendant provided the said vehicle as collateral; and (c) the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property, thereby establishing an objective crime of embezzlement as the crime of embezzlement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 delivered on December 9, 2004). Meanwhile, in embezzlement, the intent to acquire unlawful property refers to the intent to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duty to seek his/her own interest or a third party, as if the property of another person is owned by himself/herself, and there is an intention to return, reimburse, or preserve it later.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1427 Decided January 27, 2012