If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a director of the (State) D, the building C, 207, who is in charge of the general affairs of the above company.

On April 11, 2012, the victim E received a payment order from the Suwon District Court to pay KRW 24,017,040 as the refund of the deposit money, and around April 23, 2012, transferring the deposit money to a new bank account in the name of D from the victim's office located in Suwon-si District F to the bank account in the name of D bank was erroneously remitted KRW 30,497,040.

Therefore, the victim requested the return of KRW 6,480,00,000 from the difference immediately remitted to the victim, but the defendant refused the return of the difference without justifiable grounds until January 31, 2013 on the ground that the victim did not provide a security deposit at the time of the payment of the security deposit and incurred losses by the company.

Accordingly, the Defendant refused to return KRW 6,480,00, which was erroneously remitted, while in custody, and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Grounds for conviction and sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. 유죄이유 피고인 및 변호인은, 피해자가 지급명령을 받고서야 임대보증금을 반환할 정도로 악덕 임대업자였기 때문에 괘씸한 마음에 바로 돌려주지 않고 늦게 돌려주었을 뿐이어서 불법영득의사가 없었기 때문에 횡령죄가 성립하지 않는다고 주장하나, 횡령죄의 불법영득의사와 관련하여, 사후에 이를 반환하거나 변상, 보전하는 의사가 있다

Even if there is no difficulty in recognizing the intent of illegal acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant may be a month despite the victim’s request for return.