업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. In light of all the circumstances, the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although it could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as from January 1, 2014, served as the president of the Korea Marin Association of Marine Association from January 1, 201 to the present date, is a person engaged in general affairs of the said Association C branch and funding
On March 29, 2014, the Defendant assaulted F, the same member as D and E, a member of the victim’s branch, and inflicted six weeks injury on F.
In the preceding district court for the above facts of crime, the defendant and D shall
5. 23. Each fine of KRW 3 million, and E, for the same year.
7. 23. A fine of KRW 3 million was sentenced respectively.
1) On July 8, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 600,00,000 from among the accounts transferred to the former local public prosecutor’s office under the name of the Defendant and D for the purpose of the victim’s branch, which was opened in the name of the funds for operation of the victim’s branch office in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City G and the victim’s branch office in the third floor.
2) On July 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 15 million to the passbook (Account Number: I) in the name of the Defendant, D, and E under the name of the said criminal case agreement while having been in custody of the passbook prior to the victim’s name at the above location; and (b) embezzled it.
3) On November 2014, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 3 million from among the above custody of the passbook in the name of the victim’s former bank at the above location on the business basis of E’s payment, by transferring it to the former local public prosecutor’s office under the name of E.
B. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.