횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
In full view of the following facts: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal is consistently stating that the Defendant served as the head of the site office of the instant construction; (b) the Defendant also stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that he had overall control over the construction site of the instant construction site; and (c) the Defendant agreed to complete the construction by using the money that the Defendant received from E as the site expense of the instant construction site; and (d) it cannot be readily concluded as a contract for a usual subcontract, it is reasonable to determine the status of
E consistently stated that the Defendant has consistently paid KRW 30 million as a field guard, and so long as there is a passbook transaction details corresponding thereto, the amount indicated in the facts charged in this case shall be deemed to have been paid to the Defendant as a construction expense.
The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, from February 2, 2012 to April 2012, 2012, is “D (hereinafter “D”) that proceeds from the Daejeon-gu Seoul Market Remodeling Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).
Around January 20, 2012, E, the representative of the said company, received the total of KRW 5 million from E, around February 28, 2012, KRW 5 million around February 20, 2012, KRW 10 million around March 28, 2012, KRW 10 million around March 30, 2012, and KRW 30 million under custody for the said company as site expenses, while paying KRW 4 million on February 20, 2012, under the pretext of lighting and US personnel expenses, etc., and embezzled KRW 4.5 million for personal purposes at will around that time. < Amended by Act No. 11378, Mar. 30, 2012; Act No. 11300, Feb. 2, 2012; Act No. 15006, Feb. 21, 201>
Judgment
The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the relevant law-based criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so such evidence is to be proven.