횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although there is a fact that G was present at the seat of the Defendant and H in the top of the grounds for appeal, G is difficult to view that it obtained the consent of the victim in light of the following: (a) although G was merely an employee; (b) did not follow the procedures necessary to transfer the leased vehicle to another person; (c) there was no fact about the procedures; and (d) G testified that the atmosphere was strong enough to do so.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Defendant A’s representative, and the complainant C is a company leasing a vehicle.
On December 1, 2016, the Defendant, from D, the former representative of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on December 1, 2016, transferred the total of two vehicles of E (Nene) and F (k9) that D entered into a lease contract with the complainant on January 11, 2016, and February 15, 2016.
However, around May 18, 2017, the Defendant embezzled FF vehicles equivalent to KRW 63,432,810 at the market price and two E vehicles at the market price equivalent to KRW 58,196,198 at the market price and embezzled them by refusing to return upon receipt of notice of termination of the contract from the complainant.
3. Determination
A. According to the records, the court below found that the defendant, H and the complainant company G reached an agreement between H to conduct siren business and pay rental fees on behalf of the defendant, the complainant, as alleged by the defendant, on the part of the defendant, on the part of the company, using the vehicle in this case. On the part of the defendant's employee's consent to allow H to temporarily use the vehicle in this case for siren, if the defendant consented to the temporary use of the vehicle in this case, he could not dispose of the vehicle in this case and return it thereafter.
Even if the defendant did not have the intention of illegal acquisition, the defendant was found not guilty.
B. The above judgment of the court below was made.