The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to embezzlement, although there is no relationship between the defendant and the victim employment support center prior to the Ministry of Employment and Labor with respect to custody and consignment, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement.

B. As to the conflict, the Defendant received KRW 30,00,000 from the victim E, however, this is merely based on the agreement to receive premium when the name of the representative is changed later, while excluding the name of the representative at the time when the Defendant and the victim entered into a sales contract for the facilities of child-care centers, and there was no fact that the Defendant raised the victim to commit the above money.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the evidence presented by the court below, including the statement of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The embezzlement of embezzlement does not necessarily require that the cause of the custody of property for another person is attributable to the owner’s consignment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do2644, Sept. 10, 1985). In a case where money was erroneously transferred to a certain deposit account, the custody relationship is established between the deposit holder 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 mistake in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3929, Oct. 12, 2006). This also applies where there is no particular transaction between the remitter and the Defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). This part of the facts charged is based on the health care unit and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.