횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant was merely taken out the instant machinery that actually renounced ownership at Defendant’s expense, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute embezzlement.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative of the Vietnamese Corporation “B” (hereinafter “Defendant Operation Corporation”) established for the purpose of producing organic fertilizers.
The defendant agreed to operate a fertilizer business in Vietnam and D with the victim dispute resolution council operated by C.
On April 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily released the production facilities of organic fertilizers equivalent to KRW 31,939,085 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant machinery”) from the injured party for spot investment in the warehouse of the Dong-gu Incheon City (ju). < Amended by Act No. 13373, Jul. 7, 2015; Act No. 13534, Jul. 2, 2015>
Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.
B. The lower court determined that the instant machinery, a movable property, should have been transferred to the Defendant in order for the ownership of the instant machinery to be transferred to the Defendant; however, the Defendant returned the instant machinery sent to Vietnam as it was; and thereafter, the Defendant voluntarily removed the instant machinery while the instant machinery was stored in the warehouse for the victim. As such, the ownership of the instant machinery was transferred to the Defendant.
As it cannot be seen, the Defendant determined that the removal of the instant machinery kept in the logistics warehouse constitutes embezzlement and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
(c)
1) The recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to the extent that there is no room for reasonable doubt.