The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In order to receive a refund of the vehicle (BMW 740LI, vehicle transfer I) under the name of the Defendant from the former husband C, the Defendant is keeping the vehicle in the ESW 118d s reported (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), which is owned by the victim D Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition from the Defendant. Since the instant vehicle was leased from the victim by C, the Defendant is not in the position of the custodian of the instant vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.

An ex officio judgment prosecutor filed an application for amendment to Bill of Indictment by modifying part of the facts charged in this case, and this Court permitted this to change the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, even if such a ground for ex officio reversal exists, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment below is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the changed facts charged.

The legal principles pertaining to the determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refer to the state of de facto or legal control over the property. Thus, the custody of the property in the crime of embezzlement is to be based on the consignment relationship, and it does not necessarily require that it is established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., but is also established by the management of affairs, customs, cooking, and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1778, Oct. 13, 1987; 2008Do4859, Sept. 11, 2008). The return of “the custody” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act is to be returned.