The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had no intention of embezzlement because he did not withdraw the money deposited in the account of this case and did not return it to the person who has failed to receive the name, but he did not have any intention of embezzlement as he did not withdraw the money at the promise place.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where money was wrongfully remitted to and deposited in a bank account claiming the misunderstanding of facts by the defendant, the custody relationship between the depositor and the remitter is established under the principle of good faith. Thus, the act of voluntarily withdrawing and consuming the money erroneously deposited in the bank account under his/her name constitutes embezzlement. This also applies to the case where there is no particular transaction relationship between the remitter and the depositor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891 Decided December 9, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). According to the evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the employee in his/her name omitted transferred KRW 5,980,00 to the account under the name of the Defendant using the Internet banking of the victim B; and (b) the Defendant confirmed the deposit of such money; and (c) the Defendant

In this case, the defendant was in the position of keeping the above money for the victim of Bosing, and the defendant's withdrawal and arbitrary consumption constitute embezzlement against the victim.

Although the defendant fully aware of the possibility that the money deposited in his account was wrongfully remitted without the victim's intent, the defendant's willful negligence on embezzlement can be recognized as long as he consumed it while taking the risk.

Even if the defendant tried to return the above money to the first singing staff, such circumstance alone does not affect the above judgment.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.