업무상횡령
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 sold land E and I owned by the victim and paid KRW 200 million to the victim, and the remainder of the money to be paid by the defendant as commission, and entrusted a land sale brokerage from the victim. The Defendant paid KRW 217,195,00 in excess of KRW 200 million originally agreed upon (i.e., payment of F collateral Security obligations of KRW 60 million and KRW 195,00 in the purchase of land at KRW 195,00 in the face value of KRW 195,00 in the face value of KRW 195,00 in the face of KRW 37,00 in the face of check payment and KRW 7,00 in the face of KRW 37,00 in the civil engineering work cost). Thus, the Defendant did not embezzled the purchase price of land and did not recognize the intention of embezzlement or the intention of unlawful acquisition. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting the Defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, prepared a letter stating that: (a) the victim stated that he/she delegated the purchase and sale of land to the Defendant with the same content as consistently stated in its reasoning from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court; (b) the Defendant reversed his/her statement as to the contents delegated by the victim upon investigation by the police; (c) the Defendant, on August 16, 2010, issued a loan certificate to the victim to pay KRW 100 million to the victim by October 30, 2010; and thereafter, he/she later made a written statement to the victim to pay KRW 150 million to the victim by February 29, 2011, which is difficult to conform with the Defendant’s assertion; and (d) the Defendant is E.