A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant merely thought that the money deposited in his account was a loan requested by the borrower and withdrawn, and thus, was in the position of the custodian for the victim.

In addition, it is difficult to see that there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the cause of the custody of property for another person in embezzlement does not necessarily require that the cause of the custody of property for another person arises from the owner’s consignment (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2644, Sept. 10, 1985). In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a certain deposit account and deposited into the account, the custody relationship between the deposit owner and the remitter is established under the principle of good faith. Thus, the act of the deposit owner to arbitrarily withdraw and consume the money deposited into the account under the name of the deposit owner due to the mistake in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5975, Oct. 28, 2005). This likewise holds true even if there is no special transaction relationship between the remitter and the deposit owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010).

Therefore, the defendant's interest on the different premise is the same.