Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as stated in the bill of indictment B, seems to have been caused by mistake.

The representative director, and the victim C is a person who has served as the field director in the above B corporation.

On June 8, 2017, around 10:10, the Defendant intended to transfer KRW 40,000,000 to the account under the name of D in the name of labor cost, and the Defendant, by mistake, remitted KRW 40,00,00 to the account under the name of the Defendant, which was kept in the said account under the name of the Defendant.

Defendant for the same year

6. 9. 10:07: (a) Around 10:07, the victim transferred the field wage to the account from the actual president to the account; (b) the Defendant refused the victim’s request for return of the defect repair expenses that the Defendant would have to receive from the victim and embezzled the property owned by the victim by asserting that there was a claim, such as the defect repair expenses that the Defendant would have to receive.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A complaint;

1. Details of deposit transactions;

1. A specification of transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of text contents;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the defendant has a monetary claim against the victim, and even if the defendant refuses to return the remitted money from the victim, the defendant has no intent to acquire unlawful profits.

2. Determination

A. In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a certain deposit account and deposited, a custody relationship is established between the depositor and the remitter. Thus, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited to the bank account under the name of the Defendant due to the error in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement.