수원지방법원 2017.08.16 2016고정3147



Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.


Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant received a decision of provisional seizure from the victim C to receive a decision of provisional seizure against D and delegated the claim for the amount deposited by receiving a dividend payment during the auction procedure. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant received the dividend amount of KRW 4,92,596 deposited in the Suwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon, but arbitrarily consumed the said dividend at around that time.

In light of the records of this case, there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and basic facts were appropriately revised and recognized within the same scope.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a written entrustment for payment, an application for issuing deposited dividends, and a written decision on provisional seizure of real

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant received 2.5 million won equivalent to half of the dividend amounting to 4,92,596 won from the victim at the time, as compensation for aiding and abetting the victim's lawsuit and construction, and the remainder of approximately KRW 2.5 million was agreed upon by the Defendant to use the victim's lawsuit and construction during that period, and then, the Defendant received and consumed dividend amounting to KRW 4,992,596. Accordingly, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the Defendant’s arbitrary consumption of dividends of KRW 4,992,596 against the victim’s will without the victim’s consent.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

A. The victim filed a complaint against D in 2008 from an investigative agency to this court.