업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The fact that the victim of the grounds of appeal embezzled the partner's money and the defendant paid the attorney's expenses for the complaint from the partner's money does not constitute embezzlement for the benefit of the company.
2. Determination
A. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract to operate a “E” for the purpose of developing a victim D and game software and registered as an “E joint business proprietor.”
Since then, the defendant kept a partner's money in the Korean bank account of the victim's name and engaged in the execution of such money.
On July 1, 2015, the Defendant brought an issue about the withdrawal of the amount of KRW 35 million from the partner without the Defendant’s consent. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant sent a “contract for termination of the business” to the victim’s side on July 12, 2015, and the victim was unable to enter the “E” office, and the dispute over the business relationship between the Defendant and the victim was deepened.
On July 12, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 9.55 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant. On July 16, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 5.5 million in the name of the attorney’s fee for the purpose of filing a complaint on the suspicion that he embezzled a partner’s money against the victim.
B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, on September 22, 2015, the defendant interfered with the defendant's work by citing the business property of the same household, divulging the business secrets of the same enterprise, reproducing the program used by the same enterprise without permission, thereby violating the Copyright Act, stealing the documents of the same enterprise, etc., and preventing the defendant from having access to the business office of the same enterprise, and pointing out the false facts against the defendant.