업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the victim limited liability company F (hereinafter “victim company”) with which the Defendant served as the Defendant was implementing the taxi commission scheme, instead of the full-time management system, and under the taxi commission scheme, the transport income exceeding the taxi commission belongs to the taxi engineer, and thus, the taxi engineer is not in the position of the person who takes the custody of another’s property for excess transport income.
Therefore, the defendant did not pay transport earnings exceeding the taxi commission to the victim company while operating the taxi.
Even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established, it is not established.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the contents of the previous facts charged as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.
3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant works as a taxi engineer from April 1, 2007 to the victim limited liability company F (representative director: G) of Gyeyang-gu Incheon as the victim limited company E.
The Defendant embezzled KRW 4,588,836, as shown in the annexed List of Crimes, in a way that only a part of the transportation revenue was paid while he/she kept the transportation revenue generated during his/her business from October 2012 to August 2013 while he/she kept the transportation revenue in his/her business.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.
C. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a single criminal trial for the judgment of the trial court, and the recognition of guilt is sufficient to have a judge make a reasonable doubt.