The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Progress of the case

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of embezzlement among the facts charged against the Defendant, but sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million on the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

B. Only the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquitted portion of the judgment below, and filed an application for changes in the indictment in addition to the ancillary facts charged (a statement of the victim as to the embezzlement of this case in the name of a person with no name) as indicated below in the trial prior to the remand, and the trial prior to the remand was permitted.

The judgment prior to remand rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's appeal on the judgment of not guilty of all the primary facts charged about the embezzlement of this case.

[Preliminary facts charged] On December 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sent one e-mail card connected to the account under the name of the Defendant to the victim; (b) notified the account number and password to the victim; (c) on the same day, the victim’s name bearers opened a bank account under the name of the Defendant; and (d) made the victim transfer the account to the said e-mail by making the victim false statement to the effect that “the bank account was opened under the name of the party; (d) withdraws the money deposited because the confirmation is required; and (e) sending the money deposited.”

On the same day, the Defendant embezzled KRW 1,044,00 out of the amount of KRW 6,950,00,000, which I remitted to the said D Bank account eight times, for the victim’s name in favor of himself/herself.

C. Accordingly, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the part of acquittal on the ground of misapprehension of the legal principle. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment prior to the remanding of the case (the principal charge part), which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement, thereby reversed and remanded the part of the judgment prior to the remanding of the case.