업무상횡령
The judgment below
Among the portion of conviction and not guilty, the part concerning the embezzlement of business around January 2016 shall be reversed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (misunderstanding the facts as to the guilty portion) did not sell KRW 510,00 won to the victim while he/she was in custody for the victim on February 12, 2016 for his/her business, and embezzled using the remainder of KRW 100,000 on his/her own, while he/she was in custody for the victim (only the Defendant was aware that he/she received sales proceeds more than the amount that should have been received at the time, and returned 100,000 won to the customer). (b) The Defendant’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the effect of occupational embezzlement between November 5, 2015 and March 7, 2016, comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the effect that the Defendant embezzled and embezzled the same while the victim was in custody from November 5, 2015 to March 7, 2016.
B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor to the charge of occupational embezzlement around January 2016, the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily worn one set of two or more uniforms and one set of oral 1, around January 2016 and embezzled by himself can be acknowledged.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking into account the evidence as indicated in the judgment, including D and F’s respective statements, and the fact that the Defendant issued cash receipts with KRW 5.10,00 after selling the uniforms to G, and
In addition to the above circumstances indicated by the lower court, the Defendant alleged to the effect that G returned KRW 100,000 to G, but G stated that there was no fact that 100,000 won was returned from the Defendant at the time (the 49,50 pages of investigation records). On February 12, 2016, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant delivered KRW 410,000 to the victim out of KRW 510,000,000 and embezzled the remainder of KRW 100,000.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport.