All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. If a criminal of telecommunications financing fraud (the so-called Bosing crime) has received money from the victim by deceiving the victim to transfer the money from the victim to the account using the fraud, thereby the act of defrauding the victim is deemed to have been completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do252, Jul. 25, 2003; 2010Do6256, Dec. 9, 2010). Therefore, the criminal has come to possess money from the victim.

Even if this does not lead to any entrustment or trust relationship between the victim and the victim, there is a status to keep the victim's money.

In addition, the offender withdrawn cash from the account exploited for fraud thereafter.

Even if it is difficult to say that the act is nothing more than the act of the act of the crime of fraud that has been already constituted and thus it infringes on new legal interests, such act of withdrawal does not constitute embezzlement against the victim of the fraud.

In addition, this legal principle also applies to cases where a paper offender who aids and abets the crime of fraud by transferring his/her own account access media with the knowledge that it would be used for the crime of fraud has voluntarily withdrawn the money of the victim transferred to the account exploited for fraud.

B. Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants of the crime of telecommunications fraud on the part that arbitrarily withdrawn and embezzled the money deposited by the victims to the access account connected to the access medium.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court’s determination may be deemed based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ex post facto action, etc.

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus, are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.