beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.30 2016노3037

업무상횡령

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In light of Defendant B’s statement of the victim and Defendant B’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant does not have the right to discount I’s promissory note,” the lower court found that the Defendant embezzled on the [Attachment] Nos. 20 and 21 of the List of Crimes Nos. 20 and 21 among the facts charged in the instant case, but the lower court acquitted Defendant of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of mistake in the fact-finding.

B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, arbitrarily lent funds to I for business purposes, i.e., KRW 46,000,000,000 in the annexed Table 20, and KRW 21 in the annexed Table 20, and around October 25, 2010 in the annexed Table 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, using the fact that there was almost little management and supervision over the Seoul branch office’s Seoul branch office’s Seoul branch office’s Seoul branch office’s operating expenses while keeping the proceeds of sales that he received from the Young branch office or from the Seoul branch office’s Seoul branch office for small store.

2) The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime, on the ground that the Defendant received the discount of the bill issued by K at the request of I from I, and deposited KRW 17 million on May 31, 2010, and KRW 29 million on October 25, 2010 into the account of B’s bank account, and that the Defendant wired the money to I, on the ground that there was no proof of a crime.

3) The statement of the witness L by the trial witness at the trial decision of the party and the statement of the “BD transaction details” (Evidence No. 8-1) submitted by the defendant at the court below.