The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “Refusal to 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 merely because the custodian of another’s property refuses to do so, and the act of refusal to return should be deemed to be the same as the act of embezzlement, but the crime of embezzlement is established only

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2079, Nov. 27, 1992; 2008Do8279, Dec. 11, 2008). In embezzlement, an intent to acquire illegal property refers to an intention to dispose of another person’s property, such as his/her own property, in breach of his/her duty to pursue his/her own or a third party’s interest, and either return or compensate for it later.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

(2) In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the Defendant’s intent to use the instant vehicle, other than the Defendant’s intent to use the instant vehicle for business purposes, provided that the Defendant had no time to substitute the instant vehicle for another vehicle after the lease contract on the instant vehicle was terminated for the reason of delinquency in the rent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005; 201Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013).