The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant refused to return the instant money with the intent of offsetting KRW 3,185,705 (hereinafter “the instant money”) that he/she retired from office until around 201, by using loans, etc. to C and K, a substantial representative of the said company (hereinafter “Defendant’s claim”) as automatic bonds; and (b) the Defendant refused to return the money from the said company as the intent of offsetting KRW 3,185,705 (hereinafter “the instant money”). As such, the refusal to return the money cannot be deemed to have the intent of unlawful acquisition and embezzlement due to justifiable grounds; (c) the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a certain deposit account on the market and deposited money, the deposit owner and remitter are deemed to have a custody relationship under the good faith principle. As such, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited in the bank account under the name of the Defendant due to an error in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). Money received from a third party for a delegating person based on the act is deemed to belong to the delegating person’s ownership at the same time as the money was received only for its intended purpose or use, barring any special circumstance, and the delegating person is deemed to have a custody relationship for the delegating person. Accordingly, the delegated person is deemed to have received money from a third party for the delegating person based on such act without using it for the purpose or purpose of the delegation, as well as for the money entrusted by the delegated person.