업무상횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. It is difficult to readily conclude that there is a risk of infringement of ownership solely on the sole basis of the act of establishing the most fundamental mortgage over the gist of the grounds for appeal. Since the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized, the crime of embezzlement
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s judgment (1) held that embezzlement is a crime of embezzlement, regardless of whether the act of providing security under private law becomes null and void or the ownership of the property is infringed upon, since it is the so-called dangerous crime, even if there is a risk of infringement upon the principal right, and even if there is no risk of infringement on the principal right, the act of embezzlement is established.
(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant had voluntarily completed the registration of provisional seizure in the victim's name and the registration of the decision of voluntary commencement of auction by Jin Mutual Savings Bank on June 201, 201, which was before the provisional seizure registration was made in the victim's name and the registration of the decision of commencement of auction by Jin Mutual Savings Bank. In light of the above legal principles, even though each of the collective security rights in F and G is invalid by false conspiracy, each of the collective security rights in the name of F and G, the risk of infringing the victim's ownership on the land and building of the gas station of this case caused the crime of occupational embezzlement, since each of the above collective security rights in F and G constitutes a crime of occupational embezzlement.
B. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below's determination of guilty of the facts charged of this case based on such evidence determination is just.