The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, failed to pay the vehicle rental fee on the wind of embezzlement of corporate funds, and was subsequently returned the vehicle at a relatively late time while requesting a postponement of the time to return the vehicle. There was no intention of unlawful acquisition by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful permission. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the intention to obtain unlawful permission, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of embezzlement 1) The intent of illegal acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest, or to return, reimburse, or preserve it later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005). 2) The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the defendant, around August 21, 2018, requested the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim") to return the above vehicle to the defendant with the rent of 1,237,000 won per month and the rent of 20/100 from August 21, 2018 to August 20, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the above vehicle").