It is not up to the number of pages, but up to the number of pages when the act of externally expressing the intention of unlawful acquisition.

The defendant received KRW 55.9 million from the victim on November 24, 2008 and released it to another account on the same day on the same day. However, the defendant expressed his intent to acquire unlawful acquisition at least by July 2009, in light of the fact that the defendant paid the deposit for auction to the victim by using the account until July 2009.

It is difficult to see that the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition is expressed in this case, since the building did not return the money to the victim finally on March 2010, which was awarded to a third party.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, on the premise that the crime of embezzlement was completed around November 24, 2008, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s failure to return the remaining amount of KRW 22,250,800 to the victim around March 2010 constitutes an ex post facto act of embezzlement and thus acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the instant facts charged do not constitute a crime. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition and acceptance time of embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case was, at the defendant's house located in Naju-si around October 2008, to the victim D, "the site and buildings owned by E, the head of which were decided to commence an auction as of June 2, 2008, and the site and buildings are changed to be awarded a successful bid in the name of the owner of the building site and buildings." Upon the defendant's request, the defendant transferred the total amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the account in the name of the defendant on October 20, 2008 and KRW 5,90,000,000 as the successful bid price.

The defendant has a bid bond when keeping the above money for the victim.