The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of a mistake of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles in the course of calculating the amount to be remitted as in the instant case (hereinafter “misunderstanding of the calculated amount”), the remitter is not recognized as a custodian of the crime of embezzlement, unlike the case where there was a mistake in the remitter or the procedural error, and ② the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. In a case where money was erroneously remitted to and deposited into a bank account in determination as to whether the Defendant is recognized as a custodian in the crime of embezzlement, a custody relationship is established under the principle of good faith between the deposit holder and the remitter. Therefore, 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891 Decided December 9, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). Recognizing the status of a custodian in the crime of embezzlement of the money wired to the account holder, even though there is no transaction relationship between the remitter and the account holder, is deemed appropriate to maintain the transaction order and be reasonable to ensure that the account holder is in compliance with the ordinary sense of justice and social norms. As seen in the instant case, even in a case where an excessive amount exceeding the ordinary rule of experience

In this case, although the defendant cannot be entitled to refund more than 4,139,350 won, he received 240 million won as the actual number of the staff in charge of national health insurance. As to the money remitted to the defendant above, the custodian.