업무상횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the amount used voluntarily by the defendant constitutes investment funds, and even if the loan is used, it constitutes occupational embezzlement. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the co-representative of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) that runs the furniture production and sales business, and around February 201, G established the Victim H (hereinafter “victim”) with G and Dong business around 34% shares, and G registered as a representative director with 34% shares, and the Defendant took charge of operating as a representative director, and the Defendant registered 33% shares with the wife as an internal director, and kept them in charge of money investment, management, etc. while keeping them in custody.
On February 28, 2011, the Defendant arbitrarily withdrawn KRW 5 million and embezzled KRW 273,703,604 in total over eight times from August 22, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, for the purpose of the F’s operating expenses, while he/she had been in custody for a victimized company with the proceeds of goods remitted to the Korean bank account in the name of the victimized company or the proceeds of the Defendant’s investment.
B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant had an intent to acquire illegal gains by arbitrarily using the money of the victimized company in light of the following various circumstances.
(1) The Defendant and G’s partnership business relationship (i) and the Defendant established a victimized company upon entering into a partnership business agreement. The amount of KRW 10 million necessary for the incorporation of the company was borne by the Defendant.
② According to the contents of the same business, G is in charge of business, and the defendant is in charge of operating funds, but the defendant is in charge of managing funds.