횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principle) was fully paid to the victim as the monthly difference indicated in the list of crimes as stated in the original judgment. In lieu of the lessee’s payment of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, G agreed that the lessee shall pay the interest of KRW 1 million per month to the Defendant (hereinafter “interest of KRW 1 million per month”) or paid it, and the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement, and the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of the legal principle.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
The monthly rent of this case is KRW 120 million, which is the sum of monthly rent of KRW 10 million for one year, but the sum of monthly rent paid by the Defendant to the victim in 2008 is KRW 90,140,000,000, and the Defendant received each monthly rent from G as described in Nos. 1 through 6 of the List of Offenses in the judgment below, and there was no fact that the Defendant transferred the amount of monthly rent to the victim around that time.
B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that “the payment of part of the monthly rent is made in cash, and there is an amount which has not been settled for the monthly rent in 2007.” However, there is no evidence that the Defendant paid the cash equivalent to the monthly rent at that time, and there is no circumstance that the Defendant should have paid the cash equivalent to the KRW 10 million to the victim in cash.
C. The Defendant asserts that “No agreement was made with G on the interest of KRW 1 million per month of this case, and no such money was received from G”, but it is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances.
1 G is a substantial water tax from February 2, 2008 to August 2009 and one million won per month of this case.