업무상횡령
Defendant
All appeals filed by the Defendants B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
The court below rejected part of the applicant’s application for compensation against Defendant B, rejected the remainder of the application, and rejected the applicant’s application for compensation against Defendant A.
The part which partially dismissed the application for compensation filed against Defendant B by the applicant for compensation, and the part which rejected the application for compensation filed against Defendant A by the applicant for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection, and it shall be excluded from the scope of the adjudication of
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts (Fraud) A did not directly make the victims the words identical to this part of the facts charged, and Defendant B did not deceive the victims as to Q and directors of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) as to this part of the facts charged, and Defendant B only made an agreement with the victims on the general sales contract of the instant LED factories, etc. (hereinafter “instant total sales contract”). As such, Defendant B did not deceive the victims.
Defendant
B The part that could have explained the victims of the technology is newspaper articles and kys that were prepared under the responsibility of Defendant B. The contents are as follows: (a) Defendant B had technology such as ED such as the possibility of the target distribution using strens, 50,000 hours of time, 30,000 square meters of time, and the occurrence of occurrence, saving effect, and heating, etc.; and (b) Defendant B had actual possession of the above technology at the time of entering into the instant general sales contract with the victims, or had been aware that he had claimed the above technology, and thus, Defendant B could not be deemed as deceiving the victims of the patent application.
(B) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the victims, Defendant B was in a state of being able to be commercialized as a considerable degree of production of a factory, etc., and Defendant B was in a state of being able to be commercialized, and Defendant B had K before and after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.