The judgment below

The guilty part (including the innocent part) shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted in regard to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to each of the facts charged in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 13 and 14 in the annexed sheet of crime Nos. 1 in the judgment of the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the separate sheet of crime Nos. 13 and 14 in the judgment of the lower court, which stated in the separate sheet of crime No. 1 in the judgment of the lower court and the annexed sheet of crime Nos. 13 and 14 in the annexed sheet of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as “crime List No. 1”) in which G, the principal offender of the facts charged in the instant case, withdraws money from the account of the Victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim F”) and remitted money to the Defendant’s account or the Defendant’s N account for the reasons alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to stolen property, stolen property means the stolen property itself, and the disposal price of the stolen property loses stolen property. However, in light of the fact that money has a high level of substitution, which can be easily exchanged with other types of currency, and that the money itself has no particular meaning and the monetary value indicated by the amount is distributed with the meaning of transaction, in a case where a stolen cash is stored in a financial institution in the form of a deposit and withdraws the same amount of cash to be returned, the cash withdrawn in the nature of the deposit contract is lost, but there is no change in the monetary value indicated by the amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do2579, Mar. 10, 200).