The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, upon the expiration of the lease period on July 10, 2013, returned 1 set of KRW 106 from the victim C, the lessee, to the effect that: (a) one set of crowdfunding (art works) owned by the victim, which was in the above air space, at the victim’s request on July 13, 2013; (b) one set of KRW 3,000 (c) one set of KRW 450,000 at a market price); (c) two set of items (c) two parts of the nes (c) two (45,000 won at a market price); (d) two parts of the nes (45,00 won at a market price) two (40,000 won at a price), two (45,00 won at a price) coffee-type (400,000 won at a price of KRW 10,000; and (d) one set of five (00,000,00 won at a market price of the above.

2. “Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the deposited goods. Thus, in order to constitute embezzlement, the “Refusal of return” is insufficient merely by the fact that the custodian of another’s property has refused to return it, and the refusal of return may be deemed as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the grounds for refusal of return and the subjective intent. In embezzlement, so-called “an intention of unlawful acquisition” refers to an intention to dispose of another’s property as he/she disposes of it with the owner without a legitimate title contrary to the purport of embezzlement. Thus, even if he/she refused to return it, if he/she did not return it due to justifiable grounds for refusal of return,

subsection (3) of this section.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do126, Jul. 10, 1998). In light of such a legal doctrine, lives and witness C.