The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The Defendant is a person who operates D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) that develops and produces a portable settlement terminal.

On September 1, 2011, the Defendant, at the D office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “victim Company”) on September 1, 2011, was in the custody of 50 mobile phone services (A/S) from the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Company”), while being in the custody of 50 mobile phone services (a/S). On January 20, 2012, the Defendant refused to return 50 mobile phones without any justifiable reason despite the Defendant’s demand from the Victim Company to return the said portable phones.

2. According to the witness G’s legal statement, etc., the lower court found that the legal dispute between D and the victim company, which was operated by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, continued between D and D with respect to mutual claims and settlement, and that D had already been due at the time of the payment of the claim of KRW 2,00,00,000,00,00,000, such as plastic Stockholm maintenance and repair costs, etc. that D had against the victim company, and D had been in custody by the victim company, it appears that D could exercise commercial lien against the 50 device of this case where D had been in custody by the victim company, and that the Defendant refused the return of 50 device of this case on this ground. Accordingly, there is a justifiable reason to refuse the return of the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain illegal profits, and thus, acquitted the Defendant on the ground that

3. Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal: (a) By June 17, 2013 agreed upon by the Defendant and the Victim Company, the Defendant did not submit any material that the Defendant had been in custody of 50 devices of the instant device, and thus, it is probable that the Defendant had already disposed of or dismantled 50 devices of the instant device and used it as parts.