The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) performed the collection of recycled goods and clothes under a contract concluded between the victim’s association D (hereinafter “victim’s corporation”) and M apartment; and (b) refused the return of cargo cars to receive the return of profits and retirement allowances from the victim’s association.

Therefore, the Defendant had a justifiable reason to refuse to return the instant cargo, and thus, there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of the instant cargo from the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant is obliged to pay the victim corporation and the remuneration of the victim corporation at the victim corporation office located in the second floor of Ansan-si around February 26, 2015, in the amount of KRW 200,000 per month. When profits accrue, the contract period shall be from March 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015.

The content of the “E” contract is concluded and the service of the recycling business entity located in F in Ansan-si operated by the victim corporation is entrusted, and the victim corporation received Gpoter 2 cargo vehicles and Hpoter 3 chemical vehicles (hereinafter “the instant cargo vehicles”) owned by the victim corporation and kept them for the purpose of the service.

The Defendant extended the period of the contract to December 31, 2015 while operating the place of business of the Recycling Business Association as above. After December 31, 2015, the Defendant brought the instant cargo vehicles provided by the victim corporation at will despite the expiration of the contract period on December 31, 2015, and rejected the return of the said cargo vehicles even if the Defendant demanded the return of the said cargo vehicles from the victim on January 4, 2016.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled goods owned by the victim corporation.

B. 1) “Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s rights against the stored goods. Thus, the custodian of another’s property is simply the return.