The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 2, 2008, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 893,00 on April 15, 2008 to May 15, 201, the victim C&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&A”); and (b) accepted a mixed C-V 4WD (vehicle Number D) produced in Japan on condition that the lease period is returned or taken over at the expiration of the lease period from April 15, 2008 to December 15, 201; and (c) did not pay the remaining rent of KRW 17,534,847, and the victim requested the return of the vehicle without justifiable grounds while notifying the termination of the lease contract; (d) on February 2, 2010, the Defendant rejected the said vehicle without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination

A. “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. As such, the mere fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return does not constitute embezzlement, and the refusal to return should be deemed to be the same as the embezzlement in full view of the reasons for refusal to return and subjective intent, etc.

B. On February 15, 2008, the records revealed as follows. On February 15, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C&C Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). On September 2009, the instant company terminated the said lease agreement on the grounds of overdue rent for the Defendant’s vehicle, and seized the Defendant’s real estate and all financial accounts. After entering into the lease agreement with the instant mixed vehicle, the Defendant paid rent to the instant company for about 20 months, and subsequently, the dispute arises between the instant company and the instant company due to the said provisional attachment.