B. The legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3045 Decided May 31, 2017, which held that, as a person not related to Bosing, the Defendant cannot recognize the status of the principal offender or the principal offender of Bosing or the principal offender of Bosing cannot be applied to the instant case. The instant case is a typical mistake remittance case, and the Defendant is recognized as the custodian of the crime of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful permission and the status of the custodian is not recognized. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. On June 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant received a request from a name-free bondholder who became aware of through the Internet site at an unspecified place on the end of the end of June, 2015 that “if he/she wishes to obtain a loan, he/she shall send a three-month banking transaction details and a resident registration abstract.” and notified the Defendant’s name-based company bank account number (C) through facsimile.

On July 1, 2015, the Defendant, at a corporate bank located in Seoul on July 1, 2015, embezzled by arbitrarily withdrawing the amount of KRW 29 million, which was transferred by the victim D to the said corporate bank account, and embezzled by consuming the amount of KRW 29 million for the victim.

B. The amendment of indictment to the indictment was made in the first instance court, and the facts charged of this case, which the court below acquitted the Defendant, shall be the primary facts charged, and the name of the crime and the applicable legal provisions shall be maintained as they are, and the following shall be added to the charges.