업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.
except that this shall not apply.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime No. 1 of the original judgment), the above crime is deemed Defendant A or Defendant I (hereinafter “I”).
(2) Since I borrowed money from the victim G Co., Ltd., the above defendant is not the lender of the loan, and the above defendant's embezzlement cannot be deemed to have been made, since the loan of the victim's above money belongs to the ordinary work delegated to the representative director, the defendant's lawful resolution was made by the board of directors without the resolution of the board of directors, or the other directors excluding in form directors, and the period of loan is short, and there was sufficient funds to the defendant A, this cannot be deemed to constitute occupational embezzlement merely because there was no separate security provision. 2) Further, the above loan amount by the defendants was appropriated to the victim's principal short-term bond account or short-term loan loan bond account in the account of the victim's account and there was no substantial change in the victim's assets before and after the loan. The defendant A owned real estate equivalent to 4 billion won at the market price and had the above money borrowed from the financial institution to immediately repay the above amount, in light of the fact that the above defendant had no intent to acquire the above debt immediately after the transfer of the business to J, and that the above loan was actually paid to the defendant.
3 Therefore, there was no internal resolution
The judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of embezzlement against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants lent money without being provided with security was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Defendant A.