횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the legal principles stated in the petition of appeal on the first trial date.
A. In fact, there is no partnership between the defendant and the victim, and the defendant is not in the position of a custodian of property in relation to the victim.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against the wrongful defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court.
As to this, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the joint business agreement submitted as evidence was forged, and determined that the difference (referring to the difference between the balance of the purchase price determined in the sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the victim on June 2, 2014 and the total purchase price actually received by the Defendant after selling land to G, etc.) accrued after the Defendant sold land to another person, and sentenced the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.
2) In full view of the circumstances revealed by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was in a partnership with the victim is justified, and as long as the Defendant arbitrarily used the same business property or the disposal price thereof, the crime of embezzlement is established against the entire Defendant.
① The Defendant’s basic assertion is that the sales contract that the Defendant entered into with the victim around June 2, 2014 was rescinded from nonperformance of the victim’s obligations, and there is no contractual relationship between the Defendant and the victim.
However, with respect to the land owned by the defendant, the sales contract entered into on September 24, 2015 between the defendant and the F.