특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty in the grounds of the judgment on the part that the defendant embezzled funds listed in the attached Table 4 Nos. 1, 4, and 6 of the crime committed in the attached Table 4 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “attached Form”) and the attached Table Nos 86, 87, 94, 95, 127 of the crime list Nos. 5 of the crime committed in the attached Table No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below, and found the defendant guilty as to the violation of the Act
However, only the defendant appealed against such judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not appeal.
Therefore, although the part of the judgment of the court below which was not guilty was judged in the trial, it should be viewed that it was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, and this part is not determined again in accordance with the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.
Ultimately, the scope of the judgment of the court shall be limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was a partner managing E with the victims and was not a simple director of accounting as an employee.
The victims knowingly accepted that part of the sales proceeds of scrap metal was transferred to the Japanese bank account in the name of the Defendant to the Japanese bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Japanese bank account in the second to 8-12 of the judgment of the court below”). As such, the victims knew that the Defendant received part of the sales proceeds of scrap metal from the Japanese bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Japanese bank account”).
The money transferred or withdrawn from the bank account of this case as shown in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crimes is all the personal funds of the defendant, not E.
In particular, the remittance of the attached Table 1 shall be 20,000,000 won, which the defendant has lent to the victims as the lease deposit, as the amount distributed or paid by the defendant while working in E.