횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was that the Defendant had a claim equivalent to KRW 60 million, including the amount of investment, in the victim company. However, the crime of embezzlement is not established on the ground that: (a) the Defendant and G, the representative director of the victim company, decided to offset the proceeds from the instant vehicle sales and the amount of claim recovery against the F of the victim company by the amount of claim recovery; and (b) used
2. The lower court determined that: (a) with regard to whether the Defendant had a claim for investment in the victim company, G, a substantial operator of the victim company, stated that the Defendant did not have any amount invested directly in the victim company; (b) whether the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was not an investor in the victim company; (c) the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount on the grounds that the Defendant had a claim for the return of investment deposit amount of KRW 62.5 million against the victim company; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to dismissal on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge it; and (e) the Defendant argued that G agreed to return the amount of KRW 60 million to the Defendant, including G, I, H, and J, which was a shareholder or executive officer of the victim company during October 2011, on six occasions, including G, which was the victim company, but it appears that H was completely unaware of such an agreement; and (e) whether the Defendant did not have any other obligation in relation to the return of investment deposit, etc., in light of the overall circumstances surrounding the instant investigation agency or the victim’s.