The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake, the Defendant refused to return the vehicle in the course of negotiating the fee, because the Defendant received the fee for termination from the victimized company even though it was excessively heavy, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement without the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

① On April 10, 2014, the Defendant, as the real representative of C, entered into a lease agreement on the last vehicle with a lotn Capital Co., Ltd., and Article 17(1) of the said Agreement stated the regulations on the penalty for termination and the method of calculating the penalty for termination.

② The Defendant paid rent for seven months after the conclusion of the foregoing lease agreement, but failed to pay rent thereafter. Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to recover the said vehicle on September 7, 2015, when the instant lease agreement had been urged to pay rent continuously.

However, the Defendant refused to return the fee if the fee for termination is excessive.

③ As such, the Defendant returned the said vehicle on December 29, 2015, but was unable to pay the termination fee even during the said reduction, under the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit in a lot Capital Co., Ltd.; and (b) the amount of the termination fee reduced by December 22, 2015; and (c) the adjustment was made by December 22, 2016.

④ The Defendant continued to use the said vehicle even after receiving a demand to return the vehicle from November 2014 to December 29, 2015, which began to delay the lease fee.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, the defendant was required to terminate the fee even if it was unfair.

In addition, there is no reason to refuse the return of the vehicle.