The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who operates a company that develops and produces portable settlement terminal.

On September 1, 2011, the Defendant, at the D office of Seocho-gu Seoul E-building 401, refused to return 50 units of the portable settlement terminal (UP4600) (hereinafter “instant terminal”) (A/S) from the victim F Co., Ltd. at the office of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, and embezzled them without any justifiable reason despite the Defendant’s demand on January 20, 2012 to return the said portable terminal (50 units) from the victim’s company.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they refused to return the instant device as stated in the facts charged, but they asserted that they would result in the exercise of commercial lien and have justifiable grounds.

According to the witness G’s legal statement, the statement of outstanding claim amount, the protocol of mediation, and each of the Supreme Court’s Na case search, it was acknowledged that at the time of the instant case, there was a legal dispute between D and the victim company in relation to mutual claim and settlement between D and D, and that at the time of the instant case, D had already been due at the time of payment of KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000

According to this, the defendant corporation D appears to be able to exercise commercial lien on the instant device, which had been kept by the victim corporation in charge of the instant device service (A/S), and the defendant also refused to return the instant device on the ground of this.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to refuse the return of the defendant, and the defendant's above act does not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement since it cannot be viewed that the defendant has an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case are not proven and thus acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.