The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received request from C to operate a siren workplace and operated the said workplace accordingly, and there is no other reason to refuse to return three vehicles owned by the victim as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from the employees of the Victim CNHfren CNpian Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The custody of the property in the crime of embezzlement refers to the actual or legal control over the property. As such, the custody of the property should be based on the consignment relationship, not only on the basis of a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc. but also on the basis of office management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle.

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, C, who acts as an agent with the victim on December 31, 2010, has concluded an agreement with the victim on business with the victim on December 31, 2010 and has decided to transfer KRW 700,000 won per vehicle to the victim; ② C, who was arrested by an investigative agency on January 18, 201, was detained in the detention house on September 23, 2003; and ③ the Defendant transferred the vehicle to the victim on September 11, 2008, to the victim on December 31, 2010.