Three Supreme Court’s rulings are reviewed in this paper. They are all about the similar cases. Someone asked the other person to withdraw a specific sum of money from his account, but the latter(the delegated person) withdrew an excess and took it. What sort of crime should be assigned to him? The ruling A presents the view of fraud by electronic instrument. It says that defendant took illegal gain through inputting unauthorized data into ATM. Another judgement, the ruling B, sets forth the different view. It declares the breach of trust, saying that defendant violated his duty. The final judgement, the ruling C, also deals with the case alike. However it supports the decision of the lower court to give defendant the embezzlement verdict. To sum up, there are contradicted rulings on the same case! What solution could be made to handle such confusion. It is the task of this paper. The conclusion is the crime of embezzlement, it means that the ruling C is appropriate. This paper presents its grounds and arguments and hopes for readjusting The Supreme Court’s ruling forward.

• 이승호(건국대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, Professor, Law School, Konkuk University.) | Seung Ho Lee