횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant sold approximately 40% of the shares of the E (hereinafter “the Red bean”) to NN, a N, an investment advisory company managing NE’s annual fund management company NE, and the Investment Advisory Company, an investment advisory company managing NE’s funds, on behalf of shareholders, and the Defendant is obligated to keep the proceeds from sale on behalf of the shareholders from the time of receiving the proceeds from sale fromO, etc. to distribute to shareholders; (b) As such, the Defendant already expressed the intent of embezzlement at the time of payment to P for personal purposes.
I would like to say.
The defendant paid USD 222,00 to P in return for saving fees for stock purchase and sale.
Even if the Defendant did not have the right to arbitrarily use the shares of shareholders for the management of the company, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant embezzled USD 222,00, which is a part of the shares sales price, to P without the consent of the victims, the remainder, excluding USD 60% corresponding to the shares of the Defendant, i.e., USD 8,800.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment or misunderstanding the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of embezzlement, which was judged not guilty at the court below, as the primary facts charged, and added “preliminary charges” to the ancillary facts charged, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it was, since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.
However, despite such reasons for reversal of authority, the main facts charged by the prosecutor are as follows.