beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.06.22 2011고단1248

횡령

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On May 5, 2010, the Defendant entered into an agreement with E, a business proprietor, to take over premium 43 million won, security deposit 15 million won and the down payment of 4.5 million won. Around June 5, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract with E, a business proprietor, to take over premium 43 million won and security deposit 15 million won.

Around June 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) received and transferred the cosmetic from E, and (b) embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 18 million, out of the amount payable for the said premium deposited in the Defendant’s corporate bank account and kept for the victim, while the Defendant received KRW 5 million in total from the lessor of the cosmetic shop, KRW 38 million, deposit money to be paid to E, KRW 15 million, and expenses to be paid to the lessor of the cosmetic shop; and (c) deposited in the Defendant’s corporate bank account for the victim on the same day; (d) remitted the money payable for the said premium, KRW 38 million, out of KRW 38,000,000,000 to E without paying the remainder 20 million,

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant asserts that he paid 20 million won in cash in addition to remitting 18 million won to E with regard to the above facts charged.

B. In full view of the evidence of the submission of the inspection including the contents of the testimony by E, C and F examined as a witness by this court, and the changes of the defendant's defense, there is considerable doubt as to whether the defendant was embezzled, since the credibility of the changed claim that the defendant had a cash of 20 million won at the time was insufficient.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, E prepared a receipt to the effect that he received all remaining premium of 38 million won and then received money in telephone conversations with the defendant. In full view of these circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the facts charged in this case.