The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that if it is difficult to find specific location even though the victim knew of the fact that he occupies the vehicle, it constitutes a concealment, and it is also unclear whether the concealed crime is sufficient to use the property in a situation where it is impossible to use the property, and whether the victim has an intention to return it later, and therefore, the crime of concealment of property is established, notwithstanding the fact that the crime of concealment of property was established, the court below acquitted the defendant, which affected

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant could not be deemed to have arbitrarily refused to return the vehicle owned by the victim because the victim was not in a difficult condition to find the location of the vehicle and the victim was merely unable to take over the vehicle in reality.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below, namely, ① the victim parked the vehicle in the access road that enters the maintenance station to ensure the demand for free repair, and the defendant was prevented from moving the vehicle for normal business, ② the victim also could have anticipated that the defendant could not operate his/her business, and ③ the defendant could have called the victim to move the vehicle on the day of the case and find the vehicle at the location of the victim, ③ the victim reported the situation where the vehicle is transported at the location of the victim, ④ the victim could not pay the vehicle continuously after the victim was called the vehicle, and the victim could not pay the cost for the vehicle, and ⑤ the victim's vehicle at the rooftop parking lot within the maintenance station, which was located in the victim's vehicle.