업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the factual misunderstanding and legal principles, as the Defendant independently or at least engaged in the business with the victim, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received sales from the above company and kept (refusal refusal) in custody (refusal refusal) as long as the Defendant India operator was the victim’s sole owner of a medical device wholesale business constitutes embezzlement (Article 1). Even if the Defendant was a victim’s sole owner of a medical device, the Defendant used the sales of the above company as operating expenses for the above company, and thus, at the time, there was an intention to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant.
It can not be said that there is a justifiable reason in the refusal of return.
In addition, the actual settlement of the sales amount of E at the time is required with regard to the operating expenses of the above company and the retirement allowances of the defendant, so there was a justifiable reason for the refusal of return to the defendant.
Therefore, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant in relation to the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment of embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant is a director of the medical device wholesaler E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by the victim D from September 1, 2014 to the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and is a person who, on behalf of the victim, has been engaged in operating operation, such as sales, etc. of the oral equipment for preventing the smoking of water (name F) sold by the said company on behalf of the victim.
around January 6, 2015, the Defendant supplied the Defendant with an oral device (name F of the goods) to H, a company located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, and received KRW 876,000 from the Defendant and kept the Defendant for the victim.