The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant received 20 million won from F, which was immediately returned to the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged of embezzlement of KRW 20 million, which the Defendant kept for the victim. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who worked as the head of the C Co., Ltd. in Kim Jong-si.

On September 4, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million in the account of the National Bank in the name of F, the owner of the said construction, into the account of the National Bank in the name of F, which is the owner of the said construction, under the condition that the construction of a multi-household building (hereinafter “instant construction”) was subcontracted to the victim D on the land outside Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant construction”), and accordingly, the victim deposited KRW 20 million in the said account on September 4, 2014 and September 17, 2014, respectively.

However, on June 4, 2015, the foregoing Corporation ceased to be a loan and authorization issue for construction work costs for the first time, and the Defendant was transferred from the above owner F to the post office account under the name of the Defendant on June 4, 2015, and was in custody for the victim.

On June 4, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the above KRW 20 million, which was kept for the victim by using it for personal purposes, such as the Defendant’s personal construction cost.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in full view of the evidence presented by the lower court.

C. Since embezzlement of embezzlement is a crime of punishing a person who keeps another’s property to embezzled such property, the property subject to embezzlement is required to be owned by another person in order to constitute embezzlement.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1000 delivered on November 10, 2005