The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant temporarily stored the vehicles indicated in No. 16 of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below from E for the purpose of securing the foregoing vehicle. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have held the status of a person who keeps the said vehicle for the victim or embezzled the said vehicle as an intention to illegally acquire it. (2) The punishment (two months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. The custody of the property in the crime of embezzlement refers to the actual or legal control over the property. Thus, the custody should be based on the consignment relationship, as well as the fact that it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and is also established by the office management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16315, Dec. 12, 2013). In addition, in the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to an intention to dispose of the property of another person in breach of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of his/her own or a third party, such as where he/she owns the property of another person that is kept in custody, and has an intention to return or compensate for it later

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

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). Where a person who takes over a vehicle owned by another person and takes custody of a third party that requires registration of acquisition of ownership disposes of it, the crime of embezzlement is established if it is actually disposed of, and the custodian or custodian need not be the person who takes charge of the registration of the vehicle

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do1944 Decided June 25, 2015). B.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

First, the lower court is legitimate in determining whether the Defendant was in the position of a person who stores the instant vehicle for the victim.