Johnson took a diamond ring to a pawnshop and borrowed $20 on it. It was agreed that the loan was to be repaid within 60 days and if it was not, the pawnshop owner, Defendant, could sell the ring. A week before expiration of the 60 days, Defendant had an opportunity to sell the ring to a customer for $125. He did so, thinking it unlikely that Johnson would repay the loan and that if he did, Defendant would be able to handle him somehow, even by paying him for the ring if necessary. Two days later, Johnson came in with the money to reclaim his ring. Defendant told him that it had been stolen when his shop was burglarized one night and that therefore he was not responsible for its loss. Larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses are separate crimes in the jurisdiction."Suppose in the case above, instead of denying liability, Defendant told Johnson the truth that he sold the ring because he thought Johnson would not reclaim it and offered to give Johnson $125. Johnson demanded his ring. Defendant said, "Look, buddy, that's what I got for it, and it's more than it's worth." Johnson reluctantly took the money. Defendant could most appropriately be found guilty of
larceny. embezzlement. false pretenses. none of the above