업무상횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant used the amount of KRW 15,912,00 (hereinafter “the instant money”) received from G, an agent of the victimized company, as the amount of KRW 15,912,00 from K (hereinafter “the instant account”) for the purpose of repaying the obligation to pay for the goods to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) of the victimized company, and thus, the Defendant did not embezzled the instant money, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not use the money received from G for the damaged company, based on the comprehensive descriptions of L, a tax invoice issued by L, details of the release of the transaction, and the customer director, which is the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.
B. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement in the judgment of the political party. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is no suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
However, if the representative director of a corporation withdraws and uses the company's money, and does not present evidentiary documents about the source of use, and does not explain reasonable grounds for the withdrawal and the source of use, such money can be inferred by withdrawing the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and using it for personal purposes. In addition, even though a person entrusted with the custody of the money did not have all the money under his/her custody, he/she is missing or using it.