횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds of appeal revealed that ① the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was included in the other person’s shot sold to J, and ② M did not inform the Defendant of the fact that he was included in the above 4,100 shot at the time he was sent to the Defendant, but it did not inform the Defendant of the fact that he was included in the above 4,100 shots owned by the victim. However, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant said 3,00 shots were owned by the victim before he sold the 4,100 shots to the J, and thus, the Defendant said 3,100 shots were sold.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant recognized that the damaged article was another person's ownership, and M's statement was not reliable.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case, around November 1, 2011, the Defendant embezzled the instant trabane to J voluntarily (orly selling KRW 4,164 boxes, including M-owned 1,188 boxes, in total amount of KRW 55 million) at an influent place (or KRW 5,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant trab”), at a non-fluent place (or KRW 4,164 boxes, including KRW 15,50,000,000,00) by obtaining customs request from the victim I, in sequence, from the victim I, for a customs clearance of the total amount of KRW 2,976 boxes owned by the Defendant.
B. (1) The lower court: (a) there were some statements and M among the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendant, which appears to correspond to the facts in the instant case, and in light of the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office alone.