The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and the transfer of the instant claim is null and void due to the decision of provisional seizure with opposing power, and thus, the instant claim transfer does not constitute embezzlement premised on the validity of the transfer of the instant claim.

In addition, in light of the purpose and circumstances of the contract for the transfer of the above claim, it is difficult to recognize the status of the custodian on the trust relationship to the defendant, and there was no intention

B. A. The Defendant did not pay KRW 600 million to the victim, and the instant contract for the assignment of the claim does not aim at the repayment of the said obligation.

The Defendant had already rescinded the contract for the transfer of the above claim on the ground of the victim’s breach of the agreement, and the Defendant received KRW 350 million from E merely borrowed money and irrelevant to the subject matter of the transfer of the claim of this case. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to keep the said money for the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the validity of the assignment of the instant claim and the custodian’s status

A. From March 22, 2008 to March 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of claims with the victim in order to repay the debt equivalent to KRW 600 million borrowed from the victim C.

The content of the contract is that the defendant will transfer the claim amounting to KRW 600 million out of the claim amounting to KRW 1.29 billion from July 11, 2005 to December 23, 2009, to the victim and notify E of the transfer immediately with respect to the Quarrying development project, such as 22,296 square meters of forest land in Incheon-gun D, Incheon-gun.

On March 23, 2011, the Defendant notified E of the fact of the transfer of claims by mail proving the contents of the claim.

However, the defendant has transferred the obligation after the notification was not delivered to E.