The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant refused to return the penalty entrusted by the injured party, but there is a justifiable reason to refuse to return, and thus, the defendant's refusal to return is the same as the defendant's refusal to return.

shall not be deemed to have an intention to obtain illegal gains, and there is an intention to obtain illegal gains.

shall not be effective.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. “Refusal of return” in the relevant legal doctrine 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 fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return is insufficient to the effect that the custodian of another’s property refuses to do so, and that refusal of return is the act of embezzlement by taking into account the grounds for refusal of return and subjective intent.

The so-called "illegal acquisition" intent in embezzlement refers to the intention that a person who keeps another's property in his/her custody without a legitimate title to dispose of it as the person with a right to file a lawsuit against his/her intent to do so, and thus, the return was refused.

Even if the refusal to return was based on justifiable grounds, if the refusal to return was not returned, there was an intent of unlawful acquisition.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the original judgment and the court of the first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7487, Feb. 10, 2006). b. 1), the Defendant, as the representative director of D (hereinafter “D”) around July 2014, entered into a presses processing contract with the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and was entrusted with gold punishment from the victim company; ② the Defendant installed or purchased some of the factory facilities, etc. to receive gold punishment from the victim company; ③ the amount of gold supplied by the Defendant around December 2014 to the victim company.