The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who operates the Co., Ltd. E, a company producing solid fuels (RPF) in Scheon-siD.

Around November 28, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with G, the representative of the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to purchase KRW 3800,000,000 for the high fuel (RPF) type type type type aircraft (hereinafter “new type aircraft”) from the Victim Co., Ltd. E., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”). From January 28, 201 to March 7, 201, the Defendant first agreed to operate the Defendant Co., Ltd. from the Victim Co., Ltd. with one of the high-class type type equipment (RPF) owned by the Victim Co., Ltd. until the Victim Co., Ltd. produces and delivers new type equipment (hereinafter “PPF”) from the Victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., to KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., 201.

On February 14, 2012, the Defendant decided on February 29, 2012 to terminate the above entrusted operation contract and the above sexual flag and forkeep lease contract as of February 29, 2012, when he was handed over a serious sexual flag and forkin in the possession of the victim company E to a police officer in the middle of December 2011, and was in custody for the victim company for business purposes.

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant rejected the request from the victim E, even though he was required to return the sexual intercourses and forkin vehicles from the victim company, without justifiable reasons.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of embezzlement, “Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a declaration of intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. Therefore, in order to constitute a crime of embezzlement, the person who keeps another’s property in custody.