The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was trying to decide whether to return money in accordance with the result of civil procedure and did not refuse to return money remitted with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a bank account and deposited into such bank account, a custody relationship between the depositor and the remitter is established. Thus, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited into the bank account under the name of the Defendant constitutes embezzlement, and the same holds true even if there is no particular transaction relationship between the remitter and the Defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891 Decided December 9, 2010). Moreover, the intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement is expressed.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the facts. The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

① On December 29, 2015, a member’s contribution of KRW 22,00,000 was remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant, and the same amount was overlapped and remitted as of January 4, 2016, and the person in charge becomes aware of the duplicate payment.