The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not receive KRW 37,00,000 from the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) even though he completed subcontracted construction work.

Therefore, the part of the above KRW 37,000,000 out of the money 50,005,000 (hereinafter “the money of this case”) stated in the facts charged of this case, which the victim company remitted to the defendant by mistake, was refused to return to the defendant, and there was an intention of unlawful acquisition by refusing to return it.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the whole of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous as a matter of law.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a certain deposit account and deposited in error, the deposit owner and remitter are deemed to have a custody relationship under the good faith principle. Thus, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited in the bank account under the name of the Defendant constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5975, Oct. 28, 2005; 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). (b) The lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court that the Defendant had a claim for construction cost against the victim company at the time of the instant case, i.e., (ii) the details of a confirmation letter prepared by the Defendant with the victim company (Evidence 45) prepared by the victim company, G and investigation agency, who is an employee of the victim company, and (iii) the victim company appears to have paid the money to the Defendant for remodeling work at the investigative agency around February 5, 2016.