업무상횡령
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant is not guilty; 3. The defendant shall notify the defendant of the summary of the judgment.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s act of establishing a false collateral is merely a false collateral, and it is difficult to readily conclude that there is a risk of infringing the victim’s ownership solely on the act of establishing a false collateral security. As such, the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, the crime of embezzlement is not established against the Defendant
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant, registered under the name of the defendant, will operate as Dong business with the victim E, who is a friendship, around June 1, 2009, with respect to the D gas stations in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, which were registered under the name of the defendant, and then assets, including the above gas station site and buildings, shall be jointly owned by the defendant and the victim, and the defendant shall operate the above gas station, and the defendant has agreed to divide the profits into 1/2, and has engaged in the management and operation of the above gas station.
Around June 20, 2011, the Defendant: (a) prepared a loan certificate stating that the said gas station site and building should be provided as collateral to F at will and borrowed KRW 70 million from F without the victim’s permission at a non-permanent place on the same business site and building, which is a business property registered in the name of the Defendant pursuant to the foregoing business agreement; (b) prepared a mortgage registration of the said site and building with a maximum amount of KRW 150 million on the said site and building; and (c) prepared a loan certificate stating that the said site and building should be provided as collateral to G and borrowed KRW 200 million from G without the victim’s permission at a non-permanent place on June 29, 2011; and (d) completed a mortgage registration of the said building with a maximum amount of KRW 70 million on the said site and building.
Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled 1/2 shares of the above site and the building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the market price as the victim owned by the Defendant.
B. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence as indicated in its judgment.