The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not those who keep GMW750Li vehicles (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”), but even if they are in custody, they failed to return a vehicle due to inevitable circumstances, and thus, the Defendant cannot be recognized as unlawful acquisition intent.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the custody of the property refers to the actual or legal control over the property, and the custody is based on the consignment relationship. However, it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., but can also be established by administrative management, custom, cooking, trust rule, etc.

In addition, even though it is a possession assistant under the civil law, if it actually exercises control over the article, it can be seen as the subject of custody under the criminal law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3840 Decided September 23, 2003. Meanwhile, “Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. As such, in order to constitute embezzlement, the “Refusal to return” is insufficient merely by the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return the property, and the refusal to return should be deemed as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal to return and the subjective intent. The so-called unlawful acquisition intent in embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another’s property as the owner without a legitimate title, contrary to its purport. Thus, the so-called “unlawful acquisition” refers to the intent to dispose of it as the owner without a legitimate title.