On July 5, 2011, the Defendant: (a) employed the victim E as an insurance solicitor at the foregoing D office; (b) agreed to set aside 30% of the operating allowances for the insurance solicitation to be paid to the victim in the form of a reserve in order to prevent the loss of the company if the insurance contractor terminates the insurance contract in a short term or the contract becomes null and void; and (c) agreed to pay it after the lapse of one year and six months.

Accordingly, on July 5, 2011, from around December 6, 2013 to around December 6, 2013, the Defendant refused to return the said reserve even though the victim requested the return of the said reserve, while receiving KRW 12,018,650 from the injured party for the purpose of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. The principal agent of embezzlement as prescribed by Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act ought to be a person who keeps another’s property, and shall be determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws, whether it is another’s property.

Since custody in embezzlement means the possession of property through a consignment relationship, in order to constitute embezzlement, there is a legally or de facto consignment fiduciary relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or the owner of other principal rights).

In light of the fact that the essence of embezzlement is to unlawfully acquire another person’s goods entrusted on the basis of a fiduciary relationship, the fiduciary relationship is reasonable to determine that the fiduciary relationship is based on the trust value worth protecting the crime of embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 2, 201).