A. (1) misunderstanding of facts) The lower court recognized the victim as “D” company Bolivia (hereinafter “D”) due to the erroneous remittance of the instant amount, but the actual right holder entitled to demand the return of the amount of the erroneous remittance is F (hereinafter “F”) and thus, the victim is F (hereinafter “F”) rather than Bolivia Company.

In addition, the issue of return due to the remittance of the instant error is pure civil matter between F and C (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant has considerable reason not to return the erroneously remitted money to Eluria Company or F.

(2) Although Bolivia Company did not suffer any damage by being supplied with a vehicle diagnostic device under a contract with F despite the transfer of error, the lower court erred in its determination that deemed the victim due to the instant transfer of error as Bolivia Company.

(3) On May 11, 2012, the Defendant retired from the office of representative director C.

Around August 3, 2012, when E requested the return of erroneously remitted money by Bolivia Company, the representative director of C was J, and thus, the person responsible for withdrawing and returning erroneously remitted money is not the defendant.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) The ground for keeping the property in custody in the crime of embezzlement does not necessarily require that it is due to the party’s consignment. As such, the act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited in the account due to a mistake in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement. In such a case, the victim is the remitter who erroneously remitted the money.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Do1705, Jul. 24, 1968; 2005Do5975, Oct. 28, 2005). According to the records of this case, Bolivia.