The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statements by the victim C and F of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding assertion), it is recognized that the defendant demanded C to unilaterally pay KRW 2 million under the pretext of the settlement of accounts in the process of seeking the settlement of lease-related obligations, in which the defendant did not reach an agreement with C in the process of seeking the settlement of accounts for the leased obligations, and that he expressed his intention of refusal to return the damaged goods in a final

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and failing to recognize the establishment of embezzlement against the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was delivered by the Defendant from the Victim C, the lessee, at the expiration of the lease period on July 10, 2013, to the Cheongju-si E factory (hereinafter “instant factory site”). On July 13, 2013, at the victim’s request, one waing (art works) owned by the victim within the said factory site (c. 3,000,000), one waing (c. 450,000), two c. 2 c. (c. 2,00,000, 2 c. c. c. 3 (c. 45,000,000, 200, 300, 300, 40, 300, 300, 40, 50, 50, 100, 10, 40, 10, 60, 10, 40, 1, 60, 30, 1.

B. The “Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. Thus, in order to constitute embezzlement, the “Refusal to return” is insufficient solely on the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return the goods.