횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the evidence additionally submitted by the appellate court, the fact that the Defendant received from the injured party a multimond and embezzled it with the intent of unlawful acquisition can be sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On June 18, 2016, the Defendant, at around 15:00 on June 18, 2016, embezzled a “E” store that sells precious metals, etc. from the victim’s D operation in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by failing to return it to the victim, while being kept at the request of two repair in a large amount equivalent to KRW 10 million in the market price from the victim.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted of the facts charged on the following grounds.
1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received a set of the Montreal from D.
2) Even if the Defendant received multiple Montreals, the possibility that the Defendant would have lost his/her entire Montreals cannot be ruled out.
3) Ultimately, the instant facts charged were proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation.
It is difficult to see it.
3. The facts charged in the instant case are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, even if both the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the evidence additionally submitted in the trial were collected.
The judgment of the court below with the above conclusion is insufficient, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts.
A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction is true to the extent that the judge does not have any reasonable doubt.