횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal D merely requested C to discount the bill of this case, but did not transfer its ownership, and D is obligated to return the bill to D unless the amount agreed upon on the first payment date is not discounted, even if D was to receive the discount of the bill in installments from C.
In addition, the Defendant was aware that, at the time of receiving the instant bill from CD, C was present at the time of receiving the instant bill, and at the time of receiving the refund of the instant bill in lieu of C from E, that “C return the instant bill to the person to whom the instant bill was issued,” the Defendant should return the instant bill to D.
Nevertheless, since the defendant refused to return the bill of this case and used it for the repayment of his obligation, the intention of illegal acquisition can also be recognized.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is a person living together with C.
At around 10:30 on December 18, 2012, C living together with the Defendant: (a) was entrusted with the discount of the payment of the bill by the victim D, and (b) was delivered one promissory note with the face value of 35 million won. Around that time, C, a living together with the Defendant, entrusted the discount of the payment of the bill to E at the same location with the Defendant, and issued the bill.
On December 24, 2012, E returned the bill to the defendant living together with C as the bill was detained by C in the detention center because the discount of the bill was difficult.
As above, the Defendant knew of the fact that the bill was delivered before C and E under the entrustment of the payment of the bill with the victim D, and that it was returned from E.