The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine has fully borne the insurance premium, the refund from the termination of the insurance is owned by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant refused to pay the above refund money to the victim.

Even if the defendant is not in the position of a person who takes custody of another person's property, embezzlement cannot be established.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a crime of punishing a person who keeps another’s property, and thus, in order to constitute embezzlement, the property that is the subject of embezzlement should be the ownership of another person. As such, the money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person based on the act should be limited to the purpose or use, barring any special circumstance, such as the money entrusted, and the delegated person shall belong to the delegating person’s ownership at the same time as the money entrusted, and the delegated person shall keep the property for the delegating person.

It should be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do134, Mar. 12, 2004). Whether the gold transfer received for a delegating person upon delegation of administrative affairs should be determined according to the nature of the legal relationship that caused the receipt and the intent of the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3627, Nov. 10, 2005). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized.

① On September 4, 2015, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. via the victim of the Korea Life Insurance Design Private Person.

② Monthly insurance premium of the above insurance contract is KRW 695,800, and the victim shall pay 695,800,000 to the Defendant’s account through the account of E, a workplace employee, through the account of E.