업무상횡령등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) Defendant A (A) performed the same role as other secondary events while actually operating the Plaintiff; and (b) even if G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) supplied promotional products to the Victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim F”) via other secondary events than this I, it should have paid the fee to the victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), so the damage to the victim company was caused by the second event.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Even if the Defendant A puts the I into a different second event from that of the first event, G cannot set the unit price to be supplied to the damaged company by G, so there was a risk of seeing damage.
Even if damage was inflicted on the damaged company
shall not be deemed to exist.
With regard to the fact of occupational embezzlement (Embezzlement: Embezzlement), the lower court determined that 1,755 ownership of 1,755 mobile phone operators was transferred to the damaged company by means of the occupancy amendment, but the fact that the victimized company entered into a deposit contract with G, including the amount of deposit fees, payment method, delivery method, etc., is not acceptable.
Therefore, the instant mobile phone is still owned by G, and the damage company that paid all the price for the said mobile phone has acquired only the obligatory right to seek the delivery of the said mobile phone against G.
I would like to say.
Therefore, since the defendants do not have the status of criminal custodian of the above mobile phone, the crime of embezzlement is not established.
The punishment sentenced by the court below (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, 5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts (related to Defendant A's occupational breach of trust) describe the damage data of the victimized company (Evidence No. 16 No. 5) that compared the unit price with the case of the self-financing and the unit price.