횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal Nos. 10 of E, G, and F’s testimony on the 10th trial date of the original trial of the lower court is without credibility (any statements previously made by them are reliable), and the Defendant asserted that he purchased the Dong from the victim, and the Defendant had the victim pay it through H and G without paying the purchase price of KRW 80 million directly to the victim. Such assertion of the Defendant’s assertion falls short of credibility, and H is seeking to use the above 80 million won in other cases (No. 3301 type No. 33016 in the District Prosecutors’ Office within the District Prosecutors’ Office).
In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case on the contrary, considering the fact that the defendant's defense counsel cannot be trusted, is erroneous.
2. Determination:
A. On June 28, 2011, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) sold the said Dong to the Republic of Korea on June 29, 2011, and embezzled it without permission, on behalf of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., in Ssung-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) kept the amount equivalent to KRW 98,976,90,00 at the market price of the same 10,110km, which is non-ferrous metal, from the victim E; and (c) sold the said Dong to the Republic of Korea on behalf of the Co., Ltd.,
B. There is a statement of statement, etc. stating that “E does not sell to the Defendant any non-ferrous metal that the Defendant only stored” in the investigative agency, E, F, and G, etc. as evidence of guilt against the facts charged of this case.
However, the above persons present at the 10th trial date of the original trial, and the statement to the effect that “E only keeps the instant non-ferrous metals to the defendant,” which had been held by the investigative agency and the court of the original trial prior to the above persons, was a false statement made by E to facilitate payment of the purchase price from the defendant, and that E traded the instant non-metallic metals to the defendant. In full view of the above circumstances, the prosecutor submitted it.