All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (as to the embezzlement of remitted money, Defendant B 1) transferred money to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) with the intent to repay the debt to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”). The transfer of the instant claim is still entitled to receive the price of the goods, and the said owner of the said money is F.

Therefore, Defendant B is in the position of a person who holds the above money in relation to the degree of the remitter.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, since the status of the custodian in the crime of embezzlement is not recognized in cases where the price of the goods is paid to the transferor of the bonds after the notification of transfer of the bonds was made, Defendant B is in the position of the custodian in relation to the Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Investment Securities”) (hereinafter “Korea Investment Securities”) who is the trustee.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prosecutor 1) since the electronic bill constitutes a property and can be an object of embezzlement. Therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the electronic bill recorded in the facts charged does not constitute another’s property, the object of embezzlement.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on Defendant B’s embezzlement, in a case where money was erroneously remitted to and deposited into a bank account, a custody relationship is established between the depositor and remitter. Thus, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited into the bank account under the name of the Defendant due to the error in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). In the instant case, F is deemed as having committed August 28, 2014.