특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a judgment on the charge of occupational embezzlement for the purpose of paying false employee benefits, which was not guilty of the crime in attached Table (7) of the lower judgment and the part on fraud. Since the Prosecutor appealed only to the part on fraud among the aforementioned acquitted part, the portion on the charge of occupational embezzlement for the purpose of paying false employee benefits became separate and conclusive as is, and excluded from the scope of the judgment of the lower court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant 1: (a) leased part of the above Nos. 102, 201, and 202 of the Busan Southern-gu G G 102, 202 owned by the F (hereinafter “F”) to Defendant and H (hereinafter “H”); (b) Defendant 201 used the part of the above No. 201 as the office; and (c) Defendant H paid the station cost for cleaning the entire building instead of paying the above office fee; and thus, (d) embezzlement is not established.
However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B) The part F of the occupational embezzlement for the purpose of K equipment used only spent a facility for the purpose of leasing the facility to a private teaching institute for the purpose of the above G G Nos. 102, 201, and 202, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not constituted. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the charge
C) In other portion of occupational embezzlement for personal use, the Defendant withdrawn money from F as shown in the attached list of crimes Nos. 7 and 11 of the judgment of the court below is merely a part of the previous Defendant’s claim system, or the Defendant borrowed money under the pretext of provisional payment. Thus, the court below erred by finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, even though it did not constitute embezzlement.
D) Under the consent of shareholders, the Defendant with respect to occupational embezzlement under the pretext of payment of false employees’ benefits.