As long as the defendant voluntarily consumeds KRW 12,537,50, the crime of embezzlement is established.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the defendant not guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. On July 23, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the full consumption of the vehicle loan amounting to KRW 12,537,500 from the end of July 2013 to the end of September of the same year, while the Defendant was in custody of KRW 12,537,500, one more deposited vehicle loan money from the company bank account (C) in the name of the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s credit card company at the expense of the victim’s new location, from the point of time to the end of September of the same year.

3. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the judgment of the court below alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had voluntarily consumed it with the knowledge of double remittance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of the defendant.

4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (i.e., (i) the victim remitted twice to the Defendant on or around July 23, 2013; (ii) the Defendant was aware of such facts and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant was remitted twice on or around September 2013; (iii) the Defendant made a financial transaction using the same method even after July 23, 2013 when the victim transferred in duplicate; and (iv) the amount of KRW 12,537,00 was deposited into the Defendant’s account after double transfer; and (v) the balance of the account after double transfer was not increased on or after the double transfer (i.e., the balance on July 22, 2013). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24477, Jul. 23, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24745, Jul. 22, 2013>