beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.12 2015노55

업무상횡령

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant, as the president of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, paid 500,000 won under the pretext of agreement to D as agreed money on November 30, 2012, inasmuch as not only civil litigation against the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case but also criminal agreement against the Defendant, the Defendant embezzled the funds of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case. Thus, the lower court erred

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was engaged in managing the co-property, etc. of apartment residents from April 2012 to March 2014, when working as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives.

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily used 500,000 won among them as agreed money in criminal cases, while he/she kept the miscellaneous income of the above apartment in the above apartment for the victim's apartment residents.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is reasonable to view that the court below, as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, the defendant paid 50,000 won to D according to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives of this case, as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, was paid as the compensation for the litigation costs on the condition that D did not exercise the right secured by a favorable judgment against D in favor of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case (hereinafter "the Civil Litigation of this case"). Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used the above money for the purpose of a criminal case against the defendant and D, just because the contents of the written agreement drawn up between the defendant and D are included, it is insufficient