The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) D was handed over from G to J, and the Defendant did not refuse to return the NAS vehicle, and the lower court found the crime of embezzlement was erroneous. 2) The owner of the NAS vehicle in this case was Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., the lessee of the leased, and the Defendant did not have any consignment relationship between the above company and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending this legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts are as follows: ① the Defendant’s main owner of the instant NAS vehicle which was leased from Hyundai Capital Capital Capital; ② the Defendant requested I to succeed to the name of the lease contract for the instant NAS vehicle while the lease fee was borne by G (the Chairperson F, Co., Ltd. working for the Defendant). Accordingly, the Defendant requested I to assign the name of the lease contract for the instant NAS vehicle. Accordingly, on April 23, 2010 under the name of H, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. operated by I, Ltd., the KRW 5 million and the lease fee of KRW 1,459,30 for the period of 31 months, and ③ thereafter, D would be unable to pay the lease fee, and the replacement of each of the instant NAS vehicle was conducted again, and the Defendant would be in charge of the instant NA’s transfer of the instant NAS vehicle under the name of the user.