The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud and larceny) was in de facto marital relationship with the deceased B, and on September 29, 2017, before the deceased died, the Defendant donated the instant deposit claim from the deceased, and was notified to the heir before and after the deceased’s death and received the consent.

Therefore, since the Defendant had the right to transfer the deposit of this case, it cannot be deemed that he obtained the money by deceiving the bank employees, and since he has the right to withdraw cash by using the check card, it cannot be deemed that he stolen cash. The Defendant did not have the intention of fraud and larceny.

2. Determination

A. As stated in the judgment of the court below on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, even if the Defendant donated or transferred the FF Bank deposit return claim to the Defendant before the deceased’s death, it constitutes an act of deceiving the above bank employees to receive the deposit by submitting a written request for deposit transfer under the name of the deceased, as if the deceased were living.

(F) In the case of the Victim F Bank, if the deceased knew of his death, only the Defendant would have received a request for withdrawal of deposits in the name of the deceased and did not pay the deposit if the deceased did not have been paid. Furthermore, even if the deceased donated or transferred the claim for return of deposits in the G Bank to the Defendant before the deceased’s death, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to withdraw cash using the deceased’s physical check card. As such, the Defendant’s withdrawal of cash from the deceased’s deposit account using the deceased’s physical check constitutes a theft against the will of the manager of cash withdrawal in the name of the victim.

Therefore, fraud and larceny are not established.