The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to establish a crime of embezzlement, a person who keeps another's property should embezzlement or refuse to return the property in violation of his/her duties with the intention of unlawful acquisition.

The term "the intention of unlawful acquisition" refers to the intention of disposing of another person's property, such as, in fact or in law, in violation of his/her occupational duty, for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.

In the crime of embezzlement, the "Refusal of return" refers to the act of expressing intention to exclude the owner's rights against the stored goods.

Therefore, the crime of embezzlement is not established solely on the fact that the person who keeps another's property simply refused to return, and the refusal of return is the same as the embezzlement by taking account of the reason for refusal of return and the subjective intent.

The crime of embezzlement may be established only to the extent possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7637, Aug. 23, 2013, etc.). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant embezzled the proceeds from franchise business as an intention of illegal acquisition.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, the court reversed the judgment and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.