The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the embezzlement due to the refusal of return (not guilty part of the reasoning of the judgment below) among the facts charged in the instant case, the victim did not request the return of the instant card device even if the victim sufficiently recognized the fact that the prosecutor demanded the return of the instant card device.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court, based on the record, demanded the Defendant to return the card terminal, etc. several times through telephone or text from the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, which is acknowledged by the record, in other words the following circumstances.

The facts stated are acknowledged, but there is no objective evidence to prove that there was a request for return, in addition to the statement made by the victim. ② The victim sent the defendant a certificate of contents on February 6, 2014.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) although indicating the intent to terminate each of the instant lease agreements, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received a demand from the injured party for return of the card terminal, etc., and accordingly, the Defendant refused to return the card terminal, etc. with the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition; (b) the injured party filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant on April 22, 2014, which was immediately thereafter; (c) the injured party did not demand the return of the card terminal, etc. even in the lawsuit; and (d) the economic value of the card terminal, etc. at the time of termination of each of the aforementioned lease agreements was very low; and (c) the injured party appears to have been favorable to receive monetary compensation rather than receiving the return of the card terminal, etc., the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant

The court determined that it could not be seen.

2) The judgment of the court below is recorded.