The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On May 28, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant’s house located in the Military Service Co., Ltd. No. 302, the Defendant agreed to lease one of the Defendant’s house with the Defendant’s store store store store store store store store store store store store store, and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to lease the Defendant’s house with the Defendant’s house rent of KRW 54,500 per month for 39 months. On or around the 29th day of the same month, the Defendant set up a massage around the Defendant’s house.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant was requested by the head of the military prison in the Si/Gun/Gu in the Si/Gu-Eup 127, and the Defendant did not pay monthly rent from the victim once again, but the above head of the Si/Gun/Gu in the highest place of default, etc. was rejected and embezzled the above head of the massage in the amount of KRW 2,086,50 at the market price.

2. The rejection of return under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. As such, the mere fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return does not constitute embezzlement, and the refusal of return should be deemed as the same act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal of return and the subjective intent, etc.

In light of the size, weight, etc. of the massageist, the Defendant was given a peremptory notice from the victim company to the effect that the Defendant was registered on the list of defaulters, but the main content of the notice is not the main content of the notice that the Defendant would return the massageist with the payment of unpaid rental fees. Considering the size, weight, etc. of the massageist, the Defendant, who was in arrears with rental fees, did not actively return to the victim company beyond allowing the Defendant to refuse to recover.

In addition, it cannot be evaluated as a refusal of return to exclude the ownership of the victim company, and even at present, the defendant is keeping the massage in custody, and it is argued that it would be acceptable if it would be brought about by the victim company.