The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance, among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, acquitted the Defendant, and convicted the Defendant of embezzlement, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 2.5 million. Since only the Defendant appealed the conviction part among the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive separately from the acquittal part, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the conviction part

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim F, who opened an account under the name of the Defendant and used the money deposited in that account, does not constitute embezzlement.

3. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced on January 25, 2013 by the Seoul Southern District Court to be punished by imprisonment of eight months for embezzlement and two years for suspended execution, etc. on May 28, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2013. The crime for which the judgment became final and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with regard to concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the first instance court, which did not take such measures by omitting the application of statutes, is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

4. The amount of money received by a person delegated with administrative affairs involving the receipt of judgment on the grounds of appeal from a third party for the delegating person based on such act is equivalent to the money entrusted for the purpose or use only, and barring any special circumstance otherwise, the delegated person shall be deemed to belong to the delegating person’s ownership at the same time with the receipt, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship of custody for the delegating person. Thus, if such money was arbitrarily consumed, the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition