A. Since the Defendant did not know who the person who paid the attorney fees was accurately, the Defendant returned the appointment fees returned from G who first asked the attorney fees to accept the pertinent criminal case to G who requested the first time. As such, the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement or illegal obtaining, and there was no consignment relation with the storage of money between the victim and the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, the custody of the property in the crime of embezzlement means the state of actual or legal control over the property and the custody thereof must be based on the consignment relationship. However, it does not necessarily require that it is established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and it is also established by the administrative management, customs, cooking, and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1778, Oct. 13, 1987). b) The act of embezzlement as an element of embezzlement refers to any act of realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition, and it constitutes embezzlement when there is an objective act that can be external recognition of the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do299, Mar. 9, 1993; 97Do3282, Feb. 24, 1992).

(2) The following circumstances are acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of original judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do382, Sept. 12, 1989; 95Do2551, Sept. 6, 1996). (2) The Defendant may accept a criminal case against the victim.