The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have kept the money that the victim remitted, and there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, as he used the money with the knowledge of the Defendant’s contribution, without knowing that the money was erroneously remitted.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged was erroneous.

(2) The Defendant’s defense counsel asserts unfair sentencing after the lapse of the statement of grounds for appeal, but the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair on the grounds that there is no particular transaction relation between the remitter and the Defendant. 2. In a case where money was wrongfully transferred to any deposit account and deposited by mistake, the custody relationship is established under the good faith principle between the depositor and the remitter. As such, the Defendant’s act of voluntarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited to the bank account in the name of the Defendant constitutes embezzlement. The same applies even if there is no particular transaction relation between the remitter

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation that the victim did not keep the money wired.

In addition, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, knew that the money remitted twice from the victim was wrongfully remitted, and refused to return the money. Thus, the defendant cannot accept the allegation that there was no intention of intentional or unlawful acquisition of the embezzlement.

The lower court’s determination that the Defendant constituted embezzlement is justifiable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.