The defendant shall be innocent.

On December 11, 2011, the Defendant of the factory laboratory: (a) while having kept all the manufacturing equipment (e.g., the main body of the manufacturing, the oil tank, the equipment seal, the coefficient, packing machinery, etc.; c1 million won at the market price) installed within “C” located within “C” located within “C” at the Bosisi-si B, 201, the Defendant rejected and embezzled the said equipment even though he was demanded to return all of the above equipment from “C” at the end of 2013.

In the crime of embezzlement, “the custody of the goods” refers to a state of de facto or legal control over the goods, and the custody of the goods ought to be based on the consignment relationship, as well as 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 may also be established by administrative management, customs, cooking, and trust regulations.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in addition to the Defendant’s participation in the “production and supply (E)” of the aforementioned equipment before 2013 (the time of refusal to return) prior to the date of 2013 (the time of refusal to return), it is difficult to view that the Defendant entered into a consignment relationship or a fiduciary relationship corresponding thereto with D in the “storage” of the said equipment, as well as any form of consignment relationship or a fiduciary relationship corresponding thereto, in addition to the fact that the Defendant was involved in the “storage” of the said equipment.

(B) The evidence to readily conclude that the Defendant was demanded from D in 2013 that the Defendant was in receipt of the return of the said facility, and that “the Defendant was aware of the purpose of storage of the said facility and attempted to sell it, and thus failed to return it,” is insufficient to accept the Defendant’s vindication, and evidence to acknowledge the intention of illegal acquisition is insufficient). ① D sent text messages to E around January 201, 201, to the effect that it would prepare a receipt of custody on December 11, 201, and enforce the responsibility pursuant to the “disposition of the said facility,” and first (round July 2016), E was identified as the sole custodian of the said facility and filed a complaint from E around September 2016.