업무상횡령등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendants’ charges of this case should be fully recognized. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as delineated below.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants’ occupational embezzlement 1) Defendant A is a person running real estate brokerage business in the operation of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D D shop-103, and Defendant B is an employee of the above E real estate office operated by Defendant A.
The Defendants operated the real estate brokerage business as above, and recommended the victim FF to make an investment in the sale right in G in the above E real estate from July 2005 to August 8, 2005, and the Defendants and the victims made an application for the sale right by lending the name of the branch.
On August 2, 2005, the result of the winning in the name of Defendant B’s wife H and I living on the first floor of the building of the E real estate in the G complex of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on August 2, 2008, the victim paid H the purchase price of KRW 78,93,000 and the case cost of KRW 10,000,000,000 for the purchase price, and I purchased the purchase price of KRW 74,414,00 and KRW 125,000,000 for the purchase price.
The Defendants, around August 2005, delegated the duties of entering into a contract and receiving the purchase price from the injured party, stating that “The representative K of the J would purchase the industrial site in the G complex in the name of I and H with non-funds.”
On August 24, 2005, the Defendants entered into a contract with the above K to sell for a total of KRW 922,607,000 the industrial site in the G complex under the name of the above K and the above I and H. The Defendants conspired to use only a cash or check by means of the payment of the purchase price with non-funds, without paying a part of the above money to the victim at will. From August 24, 2005 to December 27, 2005, the Defendants conspired to use it at will without paying it to the victim at will, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the court below.