사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) 1. The Defendant was not a 97 million won remittanceed on December 11, 2007 from the victim E, but was a money borrowed from the bond company N. The Defendant, on January 21, 2008, was guilty of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby deceiving the victim E, thereby deceiving the victim E to obtain KRW 97 million from the victim.
② The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges that 39,90,000 won, which was delivered by the victim E, was not by deceiving the Defendant E by deceiving the Defendant, but by donation or investment to the Defendant by the victim E., but by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby deceiving the Defendant E by deceiving the victim E., thereby deceiving 39,000 won
③ At the time of the establishment of Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”), E was a director, and the Defendant was not in compliance with the audit, and E withdrawn KRW 100 million from the capital that the Defendant had established to use for business funds, etc., and the Defendant deposited the above KRW 100 million in his passbook and used it for business funds, etc., and the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.
In addition, since the auditor of a stock company is not a position that keeps another's property as his/her business, he/she cannot be held liable for the crime of occupational embezzlement against the defendant, and since September 3, 2008, the only internal director of the company of this case from September 3, 208 to the present day, it cannot be deemed
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant embezzled KRW 100 million of the victim company’s capital by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
(2) In the case of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, J apartment No. 101 Dong 1502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).