beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.26 2013고합510

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was in fact in the management of the Eth (State) in Kimpo-si, and on September 20, 2006, deposited KRW 60,450,00 from G to the account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant in the office of the victim (State F) on September 20, 2006, and deposited KRW 27,630,000 in the name of the Defendant in the custody, and used KRW 27,630,000 on April 22, 201 of the same month as the Defendant’s personal investment money for the (State) Chinese heart apartment complex in China, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant for business at the above place by using KRW 701,738,611 in total over 16 times as shown in the list of crimes

2. Each victim in the No. 4, 8, 16 No. 16 of the list of crimes in the annexed list of the defendant and defense counsel did not constitute a crime of embezzlement because the victim is not the money owned by the F (hereinafter “victim”). Each victim in the No. 1, 2, and 7 of the annexed list of crimes is unclear whether it is the money owned by the victim company, but used for the victim company. Each victim in the No. 3, 5, 6, 9, and 15 of the annexed list of crimes in the annexed list of crimes was used for the victim company, but there was no intent of unlawful acquisition because it was used for the victim company.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement, the prosecutor must prove it only. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant can be judged. If the defendant does not explain his/her whereabouts or location even though he/she has no money in his/her custody, it can be presumed that the defendant voluntarily consumed and embezzled it, but rather, the intention of unlawful acquisition is not so.