사문서위조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the above punishment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Embezzlement 1: The Defendant embezzled KRW 77,525,90 paid by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as he/she was entrusted with the name of a clan around November 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant land”) due to his/her expropriation of 1,529m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) on or around November 10, 209.
In other words, the defendant has disbursed part of the compensation as transfer income tax, etc. and kept the remainder of the compensation in the defendant's account.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of embezzlement is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.
2) The forgery of the private signature and the use of a signature for the above investigation: D clans (hereinafter referred to as “Cmpa clans”) held a clan general meeting on November 6, 201 and agreed to all the agenda items on which they would not claim for the return of compensation for expropriation of the land against the registered members of AI in the name of the land.
Therefore, the defendant signed to the effect that the members of the clan agreed to the above agenda with the consent of the members of the clan who attended the clan general meeting. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of the crime of forging a private signature and the crime of signing the above investigation, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion
B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
(a) Determination on embezzlement 1) In embezzlement, illegal acquisition intent means the intention to dispose of another person’s property, such as, in fact or in law, which is in breach of his/her occupational duty, for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.
Since it belongs to the intention of internal deliberation, if the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts which are relevant to it.
However, this is the case.