The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Since the owner of money deposited in the deposit account of this case is the defendant, even if the defendant arbitrarily used the money, the crime of embezzlement cannot be established under the Criminal Act, regardless of the fact that he bears civil liability in relation to the victim, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a person who has been entrusted with mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles deposits money in his/her own name in a financial institution as a safekeeping method, the truster cannot seek the return of the entrusted money even after the enforcement of the Emergency Financial and Economic Order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality. Thus, if the trustee, even if he/she has voluntarily withdrawn the money and has received a request for return from the truster, and the trustee refuses to return it

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11244 Decided February 12, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1856 Decided August 18, 200). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the facts charged of this case can be acknowledged as is. In relation to the money transferred to the bank account under the name of the instant bank account as the representative of the instant bank account, even if the Defendant is in the position of a right holder in relation to third parties, including the bank, in relation to the money transferred to the bank account under the said company’s name, the victim’s money transferred to the bank account under the said company’s name can be deemed as the trustee’s position in relation to the victim’s lending the name for the use of the name of the said company. Thus, the Defendant’s withdrawal and refusal to return the money constitutes the crime of embezzlement against the victim.