횡령
All prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. On August 2017, the Defendants were requested to receive and keep cancer insurance proceeds from the victim E at the home of the Defendants in Pakistan-si C Apartment and D.
On September 22, 2017, the Defendants received 229,442,09 won, including 20,000,024,659 won from the Femination Bank to the Defendant’s account on September 22, 2017, and 69,31,176 won from the Gemination Bank to the Defendant’s account on September 28, 2017, and 40,065,226 won from the Hemin Settlement Bank around October 12, 2017, and 229,42,093 won from the Femination Bank to the Defendant’s account in the name of Defendant B, while the Defendants received and stored 229,42,093 won from the Femination Bank to the Defendant’s account on September 22, 2017 to the Defendant’s account in the name of Defendant A for personal consumption.
In addition, from around that time to October 25, 2017, the Defendants consumed the total of 85,111,235 won in the same way from the place of strike to ten times, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's property.
2. The judgment of embezzlement is a crime falling under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 361 of the Criminal Act, where the victim and the offender have a relationship of kinship as prescribed in the above Article, the prosecution may be instituted only upon the victim’
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the victim is punished by Defendant A, the Defendants are legally married, and the Defendants and the victims are not living together. Thus, the Defendants and the victims are related to each other under Articles 361 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act.
(The injured party appears to have stayed in the house of the accused for the purpose of aviation cancer treatment after the cancer surgery on September 2017. However, this is only deemed to have temporarily stayed in a special situation, and there is no staticness, so the Defendants and the injured party cannot be deemed to fall under the “relative of the same household” or “family member of the same household” as provided in Article 328(1) of the Criminal Act.