Is restoration of property a defense to a charge of theft?

Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1806 regarding theft by embezzlement on all five counts. That instruction informed the jury that temporary deprivation of property is sufficient to prove embezzlement and that the "[i]ntent to restore the property to its owner [was] not a defense" to the crime. Additionally, the court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1862, which provided the following: "If you conclude that the People have proved that the defendant committed Grand Theft, the return or offer to return some of the property wrongfully obtained is not a defense to that charge." These instructions are consistent with the law. (People v. Pond (1955) 44 Cal.2d 665, 674 ["Restoration of property feloniously taken or appropriated is no defense to a charge of theft."].)