횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the Defendant had already transferred the claim for the return of the deposit amount of KRW 200 million to the new Savings Bank (hereinafter “New Savings Bank”) and did not have the claim for the return of the deposit amount to the victim by the notification of the transfer of assignment; (b) although the Defendant was erroneous and erroneously returned the deposit amount to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant was in a position to keep the money given by the victim as the refund of the deposit amount under the principle of trust and good faith; (d) thus, the Defendant’s arbitrary use of the deposit constitutes embezzlement, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement
2. According to the records, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the victim D on July 1, 2010 with the purport that the Defendant would obtain a lease deposit of KRW 200 million from the victim, and the lease period of KRW 201,00,000 from July 21, 2010 to July 21, 2012. The Defendant paid KRW 200,000,000 to the victim by borrowing KRW 14,40,000 from the New Savings Bank. The Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim to return the lease deposit to the new Savings Bank on July 21, 2010 to the victim, completed the notification of assignment of claims to the victim around that time, the Defendant voluntarily terminated the lease deposit agreement on July 21, 201 with the victim on July 21, 201, and then received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim on July 1, 201, each of the following facts.
Therefore, as long as the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim to return the deposit of KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s victim to the new Savings Bank, the Defendant completed the notification of the transfer of the deposit to the victim.