The judgment below

The part concerning the accused case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle (Embezzlement), the Defendant is a limited liability company C (hereinafter “victim Company”).

(2) Although the court below determined that the Defendant did not have any intent to acquire unlawful acquisition by refusing to return the instant automobiles and smartphones without any justifiable reason even though it was returned to the victim company, it did not have any intent to acquire unlawful acquisition. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing is unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 20, 2012, when the Defendant was requested to return the said automobiles and smartphones from the transferee of the said company at around 15:30 on July 20, 2012, he/she refused to return the said automobiles and smartphones, and embezzled them. 2) The judgment of the court below was not returned even if the Defendant requested to return the instant automobiles and smartphones from E on July 20, 2012, but did not return them. However, according to the records of this case, the Defendant, as to the lease and installment of the instant automobiles leased by the victim company at the time of his/her refusal to return the automobiles and smartphones.