횡령
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged was well known to the Defendant on April 2015, 201, “The Defendant was a person who was a friendly victim C, who had long occupied the land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the State owned, and was notified by the Korea Asset Management Corporation that the said land would incur a fire, but did not receive the said land due to the lack of cost of fire.”
Accordingly, on April 2015, the Defendant offered that “The Defendant sold the above land to E, and paid the remainder to the Korea Asset Management Corporation with the purchase price, and received consent from the injured party by proposing that “The remainder shall be the thickness of the v. D land to be sold to B,” and that “B shall be in charge of the sale of the above D land.”
On April 21, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victim as the one who was sub-party in the name of the State on April 21, 2015, and again completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 27, 2015 under the name of E, a purchaser, from the victim’s name. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant received from G real estate located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and kept the amount remaining after 117,315,370 won for the remainder of the purchase price of land, excluding the remainder of the remainder of the purchase price
On August 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily paid KRW 77,315,370 out of the above sales amount in custody of the victim, and embezzled the property owned by the victim.
2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act. The Defendant and the victim constitute relatives under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act. Thus, according to Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 361 of the Criminal Act, the facts charged in the instant case constitutes an offense subject to prosecution upon complaint filed by the victim.
According to the records of this case, a victim made a complaint on June 17, 2016 with the statement to the effect that the victim is not punished against the defendant in this court.