횡령
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant, as the C representative of the Co., Ltd. in the instant charges, lent 50 pumps of the victim F, the representative of the E Co., Ltd., through D, a material transport business entity, and used them at a construction site located in G at a leisure city, from that date until November 8, 2016, the Defendant leased 3,725,000 won in total at the market price of the victim’s possession from the victim and used them at the above construction site, as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form, from that date until November 8, 2016.
After the lapse of two months from the lease period, the Defendant asserted that the said materials were stored for the victim, and that they were not leased upon request from D and F on several occasions from the end of January 2017 to June 2017, and that they were not leased. The Defendant embezzled the said materials by refusing to return without justifiable grounds.
2. In full view of the statements made by witnesses D, H, F, and I in the third trial records, each police statement made by the witness D, D, H, and F, each statement made by each police officer with regard to D, H, and F, transaction statement, written request, tax invoice, etc., construction materials listed in the attached list of crimes owned by the victim F are likely to have been used at the G construction site when the above C corporation was constructed.
However, in order for the defendant to be recognized as embezzlement crime, the fact that the defendant disposed of the above construction materials to a third party with the knowledge that they are owned by the victim F, or that the defendant refuses to return the said construction materials as they are currently kept in custody. However, the above mentioned evidence and other evidence submitted by the prosecution alone are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant does not consent to the purport of the public notice of acquittal.