The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be charged with embezzlement against the victim-related dispute resolution council listed in the attached list No. 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The victim company is each of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet of crime (hereinafter “each of the vehicles of this case”) provided for the crime of this case by taking advantage of the defendant’s driver’s license photographs

In the case of a lease agreement in which the defendant prepared part of the lease agreement on the vehicle under the name of the defendant, and the defendant did not sign the lease agreement, the defendant cannot be deemed to have concluded the lease agreement on the vehicle with the victim. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a person who keeps another's property. However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized that he provided the relevant vehicle to a third party on the premise that he is the party to the lease agreement at the police and the prosecution examination, and that most of the fees for the relevant vehicle were paid by the defendant, it is reasonable to see the defendant as the custodian of each relevant vehicle, as in the case of a lease agreement made under the name of the

The lease contract on each of the instant vehicles was concluded in an abnormal manner, such as that part of the user fees of each of the instant vehicles is deposited into the account in the name of the victim company rather than the account of the victim company, and the victim company intentionally delays the recovery of each of the instant vehicles. In light of this, the victim company should be deemed to have permitted the use of each of the instant vehicles by recognizing that the Defendant was voluntarily using each of the instant vehicles.

In particular, among the victim companies, the LAB, the LAB, the KAO, and the IAB are substantially the same ownership company, and the victim company requested the defendant to enter into a lease contract with each of the instant vehicles first, and the defendant allowed to use the vehicle voluntarily.

In the end, it is eventually.