횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of all the evidence, including the victim and E’s statements, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant, while being aware of the agreement that the Defendant would divide half of the discounted amount of the promissory note as stated in the facts charged of this case between the victim and E (hereinafter “instant agreement”), he received the said promissory note from E, and that he embezzled half of the discounted amount of the discounted amount by consuming all the discounted amount while keeping the discounted amount.
2. Determination
A. On June 4, 2012, the Defendant was issued the said promissory note upon the victim’s request for the discount of the said promissory note from the victim, knowing that the victim D and E agreed to divide the victim’s KRW 30 million of the F-issuance of the F-issuance of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. with the Plaintiff at the discount of the Plaintiff’s director. The Defendant was issued the said promissory note upon the victim’s request for the discount of the said promissory note.
On June 5, 2012, the Defendant received discount from KRW 23,852,00 through I located in the H building in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si and embezzled the said bill by arbitrarily consuming KRW 11,926,00 among them for the victim.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant is consistently and consistently with the investigative agency from the investigation agency to the instant court.
(2) The victim, around June 4, 2012, had been in Chuncheon with the Defendant to obtain F’s seal from the Defendant in the complaint, and on that day, the bill of this case was presented to the Defendant.
next day;
6.5. Around 10:00, the Defendant called the bank, and the Defendant was located in the bank, and there was no continuous contact, thereby finding the Defendant directly to the Defendant around 17:00.
“The police made a statement to the effect that it is, but in the police.