업무상횡령등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. In fact, the victims of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine demanded the Defendant to return the instant firearms to the victim’s company 86 years old L, who solely borrowed the victim’s name, and this is practically returned to the victims who are not permitted to sell the firearms or possess the firearms. Moreover, since the victims failed to prepare a proper place to store the instant firearms in accordance with the law, the Defendant’s return of the instant firearms to the victims is likely to be punished for a justifiable reason, and thus, the Defendant refused to return the instant firearms for a justifiable reason. As such, there is no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the part concerning the embezzlement of the case, which is jointly owned by the victim B and the victim B, the Defendant and the victim B engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gas sprayers and launch guns from December 2, 2014 to obtain permission in the name of “C” in the name of the Defendant. From the end of June 2016, disputes between them began between them and the victim B on July 24, 2016.
8.3. 17 Oct. 17 of the same year, the dispute has been deepened by sending a certificate of content demanding the settlement of the defendant, and the defendant did not claim that the former owner refuses to return the ship because the former owner obtained the victim B's deduction from the victim B, and only the defendant was subject to the disposition of non-guilty suspicion (20,38 pages of investigation record), although the above ship was jointly owned by the victim B and the partner B, it did not claim that the defendant B refused to return the ship because the latter did not permit the firearms.