The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while recognizing the fact that the money deposited by the victim G was a gold-raising by the crime of telecommunications fraud, he/she transferred money to his/her own TOSS account and consumed it for personal purposes.

In a case where money was erroneously remitted, a custody relationship between the depositor and the remitter is established under the principle of good faith as well as between the defendant and the victim.

The Supreme Court's precedent that no crime of telecommunications fraud does not constitute embezzlement in a case where the paper offender withdrawss money from the account exploited for fraud does not apply to the case where only the defendant was prosecuted for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that custody relationship between the Defendant and the victim was established. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. A prosecutor of changes in indictment (in addition to ancillary charges) maintains the existing charges of embezzlement, which the court below found not guilty, as the primary charges, and maintains the following:

4. As described in paragraph (a), an application for changes in the indictment was filed to add the facts charged to the injured person’s name, the transferee of the approaching medium, as the ancillary charge, and this Court was subject to the judgment upon permission.

The reasons for appeal against the primary facts charged by the prosecutor and the preliminary facts added in the trial of the party are examined in order.

3. Judgment as to the prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts charged

A. The summary of the facts charged in the primary charge is that the Defendant is located in his/her residence located in H and I of the Jeonsan-si, Jeonju-si, Seoul, around May 23, 2017.