beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016노2097

횡령등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the part related to the victim G and J's investment in the I coffee shop) the Defendant has made an investment of KRW 160 million in total in relation to the establishment and operation of the I coffee shop (hereinafter "the instant coffee shop"). Among them, 120 million won was made by the Defendant’s mother’s funds, and thus, he was entitled to dispose of the relevant shares.

Accordingly, the Defendant received investment funds from the victim G and J on the instant coffee shop and gave out the above KRW 120 million equity shares, and thus, it can be deemed that the said victims used investment funds in the name of their investment.

Therefore, despite the absence of the Defendant’s deception, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and finding the Defendant guilty.

B. In light of the fact that some of the proceeds from sentencing have been paid to the victims G and that the principal amount of KRW 65 million has been returned to the victims G, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s investment funds of the said victims may be acknowledged as having not expressed an intent to invest in the coffee shop of this case, and contrary to such assertion, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made an investment in the manner of transferring its equity interest to the victims.

① The Defendant did not deliver a total of KRW 15 million of the investment funds received from the said victims to E of the instant coffee shop, and used them for the purpose of compensating for its own stock investment loss or paying for its obligations to the existing creditors.

② While receiving the investment from the above victims, the Defendant did not notify the business owner E of the coffee shop of the instant case that an investment was changed, or did not take measures, such as transferring the claim to return the investment.

3. The above victims.