The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was around August 14, 2012 by the Defendant’s request by the operator E of D Co., Ltd., in which the Defendant had been employed, that the victim F lent KRW 700,000 to the Spoma Co., Ltd. and, in return, that in return, the Defendant kept 14,000 shares issued by Spoma Co., Ltd. in the name of the Defendant for the victim.

On June 17, 2013, the Defendant, upon receiving deposit of KRW 70 million from one bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant, and kept the same for the victim. However, upon receiving a request from the victim from July 16, 2013 to August 2, 2013, the Defendant rejected payment and embezzled it without justifiable grounds.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s lawsuit is that the Defendant received the instant shares from E as part of retirement allowances, and the F had no way to do so before the instant case. Thus, the Defendant did not keep the F’s property (the instant shares or the instant capital reduction).

3. Determination

A. The crime of embezzlement is an offense with the content that the custodian of another’s property embezzled or refuses to return the property, and the subject of embezzlement is the person who keeps another’s property.

The custody refers to the possession of property by the consignment relationship, so eventually, in order to constitute embezzlement, there is a legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or the owner of other principal).

The title trust relationship that generates such a new trust relationship is not necessarily established by the explicit contract between the truster and the trustee, but can also be established by the implied agreement.

In addition, whether there was an implied agreement on title trust or not, the relationship between the truster and the trustee, and the trustee's motive and the trustee's custody of the property.