특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant B, A, C, D, E, and F shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment for four years, Defendant A, and .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court acquitted Defendant A on the ground that he/she had implied consent or presumed consent of G in relation to the charge of forging each private document, forging a private document, uttering of a falsified investigation document, uttering of a private document, use of a private person, use of a private person, use of a private person, use of a private person for illegal use, use of a private person, use of a private person, and use of a private person.
However, in light of the testimony contents of G, it is apparent that there was no explicit consent of G, and furthermore, it cannot be said that the implied consent or constructive consent of G is not expected.
(2) Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to occupational embezzlement of KRW 256,350,000, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the following grounds: Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts with respect to the purchase of SS building fees of KRW 256,350,000; Defendant B’s receipt of the money stated in this part of the facts charged from U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”) and there was no intention of embezzlement.
(B) Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the exercise of a falsified investigation document related to the purchase of AS building among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant E requested approval on the payment of progress payment (final) for the construction works (final) due to the construction of AS building (facility management team-124, July 16, 2009), along with the official document, for the disbursement resolution, etc. related to the construction of a lake, and the Defendant did not know of the detailed contents, and did not know that the said official document and disbursement resolution were affixed with the seal affixed to the president’s approval column of the said official document and disbursement resolution, and did not know that there was a forged BD’s transfer confirmation on the transfer result at the end of
Therefore, the defendant did not use the forged certificate of transfer result in collusion with the defendant E.
(C) Of the instant facts charged, relating to KRW 6,571,282,00.