횡령
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles consented to the Defendant’s operation of a entertainment room after May 2012. According to the above agreement, there is no money remaining when the Defendant arranged the entertainment room business and settled the expenses against the sales price of the entertainment machine and the deposit for the entertainment room, and it cannot be deemed that the said business property was embezzled to offset the essential expenditure. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc. reveals the legal principles as indicated in its reasoning, and subsequently, concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendant to jointly operate an adult amusement room by making investments with the victim D, E, F, and G around March 2012, namely, (i) the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant, namely, (ii) the Defendant entered into such a partnership agreement with the victim’s D, E, F, and G; (iii) the Defendant’s use of its funds for operating expenses in the amusement room in a transparent manner; (iv) the Defendant’s use of all business operations in a transparent manner; and (v) the loss incurred by treating the funds in a single manner without a resolution by the majority is respected; and (v) all profits and dividends are legally liable to the parties causing the loss; and (v) the victims have no agreement to grant the Defendant with the authority to dispose of the operating assets or distribute the remaining assets every day; and (v) the Defendant used its funds for operating expenses in
It is argued that there was no prior notification to the victims or agreement with the victims, and the funds thereafter.