횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant aggregate screening period belongs to the ownership of the victim G; even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant aggregate screening period was jointly owned by the Defendant and the victim; ② the Defendant’s storage of aggregate for the victim by means of collecting aggregate using the screening machine of the instant aggregate for the purpose of the victim; ③ the Defendant’s de facto consignment relationship between the Defendant and the victim is acknowledged; ③ the omission of the Defendant’s assertion that the instant aggregate screening period was the subject of the victim’s lawsuit at the time of the execution of the seizure of movable property, or failing to notify the victim that the seizure was executed, constitutes the expression of intent to acquire unlawful acquisition; and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement.
2. Determination
A. In order to establish embezzlement, the lower court determined that there exists a fiduciary relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or the person who has other principal rights) by law or de facto consignment relationship with the owner of the property. (1) While the victim informed the Defendant of the acquisition of the ownership of the instant aggregate sorting machine on August 2014, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was jointly owned by the network E and the Defendant, but the Defendant’s selection of aggregate, and (2) the victim transferred the aggregate sorting machine to another place on October 2014, but the Defendant did not resolve the monetary relationship with D (hereinafter “D”), and the victim refused the victim to possess the aggregate sorting machine with the victim and the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the victim was entrusted with a fiduciary relationship between the victim and the Defendant.
It was judged that there was a lack of recognition.
B. 1) In order to recognize a crime of omission under the Criminal Act, the outcome of infringement of legal interests prohibited by the Criminal Act shall be prevented.