The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine the reasoning of the judgment below.

The court below recognized the following facts or circumstances by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance and the witness E and H.

① When F was subject to a detained investigation due to a special larceny suspicion that stolen another person’s property worth worth KRW 168 million in total over 58 times, the victim E requested that the Defendant agree with the victims of F criminal cases, thereby leaving KRW 200 million to G attorney-at-law office, which is F attorney, for expenses necessary for agreement, deposit money and agreement, and had the Defendant use the said money whenever necessary in the course of attending the meeting of the Defendant.

② In the process of responding to the F’s criminal case victims, the Defendant received and used the agreed money and expenses from time to time to time in the G attorney-at-law office, and the G recorded the date, amount, etc. each time when the Defendant pays money to the Defendant.

③ The Defendant spent KRW 49.8 million out of the above KRW 200 million as the Defendant’s living expenses and the Defendant’s debt repayment regardless of the agreement with the victims of F criminal cases.

④ Even based on each statement from the Defendant and H investigative agency to the court of the court below, there was no provision on how the victim E would dispose of the remaining amount after requesting the Defendant to reach an agreement at KRW 200 million.

(5) After the conclusion of an agreement with the victims of F, the Defendant did not settle the details of use and the balance with F with the victims E.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the court below entrusted the aforementioned KRW 200 million to the victims of F criminal cases for specific purposes, such as the agreed amount with the victims of F criminal cases or the deposit money and expenses necessary for the recovery of damage, and notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was obligated to use the said money in accordance with the purpose of entrustment.