After the perpetrator illegally embezzled the company's property and voluntarily compensated, the court's criminal judgment determined that the amount of illegal income from the crime of occupational embezzlement was less than what he had paid compensation, requiring the company to return the overpaid compensation based on unjust enrichment. However, since criminal litigation adopts a strict standard of proof, while civil litigation adopts a high-probability standard of proof, that is, the standard of proof in criminal litigation is higher than that in civil litigation. Therefore, the amount of stolen money determined in the criminal judgment is different from the amount actually caused by the company. The losses are not the same. The perpetrator cannot simply determine the scope of the company's losses based on the amount of stolen money identified in the criminal judgment and require the company to return unjust gains.