횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), each of the statements made by the victim, copies of text messages, copies of multiple copies, civil answers, details of financial transactions, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant and the victim operate the instant coffee specialty (hereinafter “the instant coffee specialty”) with the victim as stated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the instant facts charged is that the Defendant invested a total of KRW 17 million with the victim C from June 14, 2012 to March 20, 2014, and agreed to the share of KRW 50:50, and operated the instant coffee specialty as a partnership in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with F to transfer the instant coffee specialty in KRW 90 million, which is the said business property, to F, and received the down payment of KRW 2 million on the same day, and received KRW 8 million in intermediate payment around March 10, 2014, and received KRW 80 million in advance around March 20, 2014, and received KRW 5 million in advance from G, the owner of the building, and at the same time, received KRW 95 million in advance, and stored for the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not distribute the premium to the victim, which was notified of or received from the transfer of the instant coffee specialty, to the victim, and voluntarily consumed the Defendant’s and his family’s debt from March 21, 2014 to April 7, 2014, the Defendant independently opened another coffee specialty, and the Defendant’s daily living cost.
Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the sum of the premium and rent deposit, which is a combination of relics with the victim, KRW 95 million.
B. The lower court’s judgment rejected the credibility of the victim C’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the same as the victim.