업무상횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) a legal dispute in which the defendant paid attorney fees, etc. with the funds of B (hereinafter “the text of this case”) is not only a lawsuit in which the defendant is an individual position but also a case where there is a special need, such as deep relation to business or litigation for the benefit of the text of this case.
In addition, since the above legal dispute between the defendant and the defendant has independently carried out the lawsuit without confirming whether it is intended to benefit from the text of this case or whether it is necessary to do so, and has paid attorney fees, the defendant's intention of embezzlement and illegal acquisition is recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. A. Around May 27, 2017, the gist of the facts charged in this case’s sentence D was suspended from the qualification as the head of the sentence, and re-entered as the head of the sentence on September 17, 2017. The Defendant was in charge of the door-to-door agency service for the said period.
During the process of being in charge of door-to-door Agency, the Defendant used the circumstance that KRW 11,521,788 of the money was deposited in the account in the name of “B” and deposited and managed the passbook, seal impression, etc. in the account in the name of “D”, and embezzled by voluntarily consuming KRW 8,178,218 out of the money deposited in the E-bank’s private Dong branch in the E-bank on October 23, 2017 without the consent of the literature. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28421, Oct. 23, 2017>
B. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition was sufficiently proven solely by the fact that the Defendant transferred the funds in the instant sentence to his own personal account.
It is difficult to see that it can be inferred or inferred, and even if it is possible to transfer the facts charged in this case to the private account, the attorney fee is paid.