특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below against Defendant B and the judgment of the court below of second.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the parts found guilty of Defendant A (1) by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, part of the parts found guilty of Defendant A (1) and KRW 1 and KRW 2 shall be deemed not to constitute a crime for the following reasons.
Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant 1 and 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A) The Defendant did not participate in the issuance of a promissory note against AW on the charge of occupational breach of trust related to AW (the charge No. 1 4-b.).
B) The Defendant Company BK’s occupational embezzlement (No. 5-A. 5-2 of the first instance judgment) related to BK (hereinafter “BK”) (hereinafter “Defendant A”)’s seizure of KRW 300 million issued by BK to P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) and redemption of P’s obligation, so there was no intention of embezzlement and illegal acquisition.
C) Since the occupational embezzlement related to the deposit for housing lease (Article 5-2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act) Defendant A used the deposit with the P’s approval for return of the deposit for housing lease, Defendant A did not intend to acquire the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.
D) Since the fact of occupational breach of trust in relation to BN and Q (the crime No. 1-C, 5-5) Defendant A’s seizure of P with the funds borrowed from BN and Q, and repaid P’s debt, Defendant A did not intend to obtain the intent of breach of trust and illegal acquisition.
E) Occupational embezzlement related to BO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BO”) (Article 5-D of the first instance crime)
A) Since the sales commission received from BO was lawfully received from the sales commission for the C Q sales case sold in lots at the time when Defendant A was employed as the head of the headquarters, there was no intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, and there was no property damage.
F) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (the crime of the second instance) Defendant A is the victim GB.