업무상횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the building board of this case was entrusted to the defendant with the purpose and purpose of "repair", and the defendant used it in conflict with the purpose and purpose of the construction, and therefore, the crime of occupational embezzlement was established. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to regard the above goods as goods stored in the defendant with the purpose and purpose specified. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of occupational embezzlement or embezzlement.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from March 21, 2012 to June 26, 2012, received more than 2745 parts of the victim’s claim for repair work requested by the victim E (hereinafter “instant goods”), and disposed of them in another place due to the difficulties of the Company around July 2012, and embezzled them.
B. As to the judgment of the court below, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the goods of this case are substitute goods and that E has delegated the storage of the goods of this case to the defendant with the purpose specified, and rather, according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, E requested repair by specifying only the size and quantity of the goods of this case for which he did not indicate whose ownership it belongs, and the defendant stored and repaired the goods of this case in combination with other repair entrusting business operators, and the accepted goods can be recognized as having returned according to the size and quantity requested by the repair entrusting business operators. Thus, the goods of this case kept by the defendant are specified to be separated from the body for construction used by other repair entrusting business operators and their purpose.