횡령
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
1. On October 26, 2012, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant received a request from the victim C to pay KRW 39 million to E branch office E branch office E branch office E in exchange for the payment of the investment amount of KRW 39 million from the victim; (b) on the same day, the Defendant received the said money from the Defendant’s name with the Defendant’s bank account (F) and stored for the victim; (c) on the same day, the amount of KRW 29 million was remitted to the Defendant’s business bank account in the name of women-friendly G; and (d) the remainder of KRW 10 million was embezzled by arbitrarily consuming the said E bank account (I) as the Defendant directly invested.
2. On October 2012, the Defendant and the defense counsel agreed to receive a return of KRW 30 million out of the investment funds already paid and E.
Around that time, the injured person delivered the money to E to transfer the investment amount of KRW 39 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant transferred the money to E to the victimized person’s investment amount of KRW 39 million plus KRW 1 million, but 30 million was set off against the Defendant’s return of KRW 30 million and remitted the money to KRW 10 million.
Ultimately, E is not an embezzlement because it is delivered to the injured party's investment amount of KRW 40 million.
3. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the following circumstances are acknowledged. According to this, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant embezzled money as stated in the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
A. (1) From January 22, 2008 to July 19, 2013, E was subject to criminal punishment for the fact that he/she acquired 27 victims a sum of KRW 138.7 billion as investment funds from 27 victims (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Gohap 980, 1433 (Consolidation), Seoul High Court Decision 2014No 1054, 2014Do1347). (2) Upon examining the judgment on E, the victim did not have any money invested in E on October 26, 2012.