The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On March 26, 2018, the defendant received the deposit from the victim and expressed his/her intention to return the kickboard while continuing to contact with the victim. On April 12, 2018, the defendant found the place to keep the kickboard. Thus, there was no intention to acquire the defendant illegally.

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

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who served as a consignee from December 6, 2017 to December 13, 2017, operated by the victim B, as a consignee.

On December 6, 2017, the Defendant retired from the company on December 13, 2017, when the Defendant leased one electric kickboard (F production) equivalent to KRW 599,000 in the market value of the victim’s possession at C offices located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul D D Building E, and refused to return the said damaged goods on March 26, 2018 while the Defendant kept the said kickboard without returning it.

Judgment

“Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against a custodian. Thus, in order for a custodian to constitute embezzlement, the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return is insufficient to the extent that the refusal of return can be deemed as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the grounds for refusal of return and the subjective intent. In the crime of embezzlement, the so-called intent of illegal acquisition refers to the intent to dispose of another’s property as he/she himself/herself without a legitimate title contrary to the purport of embezzlement. Therefore, even if he/she refused to return the property, there is justifiable reason for refusal of return.