beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.14 2016고단6816

업무상횡령

Text

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

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who actually operated the above company as the head representative of the Chinese branch office, the overseas branch office of C, from around December 6, 2002, who is the head of the Chinese branch office, the foreign branch office of C, as the company head.

On October 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sold D Building 802 in the Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the People’s Republic of China of the Republic of China of the People’s Republic of

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the real estate stated in the charge of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion is the real estate owned by the defendant, the defendant sold it.

This does not constitute embezzlement.

B. The subject of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be the person who keeps another’s property, and shall be determined pursuant to the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws whether it is another’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2009Do1373, May 13, 2010). In order to establish embezzlement, the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property through a consignment relationship. As such, there is a legal or de facto fiduciary relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or other person) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Do4828, Sept. 9, 2005; 2009Do9242, Jun. 24, 2010).