횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while serving as the head of the victim’s village, was borne by the victim’s own expense at his own expense. The Defendant, with the consent of the residents of the village, withdrawn the amount equivalent to the amount of the money the Defendant was first borne by the agricultural head of the agricultural bank in the name of the victim’s village (hereinafter “the instant head of the Tong”), so there was no intention to commit embezzlement of public funds or to obtain illegal profits.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of mistake and embezzlement and the existence of the intent of unlawful acquisition.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, while the Defendant, from March 2004 to February 9, 2012, was in office as the head of the Southern-gun C Lee Sung-gun, the Defendant kept the funds owned by the victim’s village in the instant passbook and managed the revenue and expenditure thereof for the village of the victim.
On February 9, 2012, the Defendant continued to keep the above passbook in custody even though E had been elected as a new Chapter, and on February 27, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily withdrawn 2 million won from the above passbook from the Doo-gu branch located in the Doo-gu, Seoul District Court (hereinafter “the instant money”) and embezzled the victim’s property by using it individually.
3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the possibility that the defendant would have withdrawn the instant money with the consent of the victim community general meeting cannot be ruled out. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant embezzled the instant money.
There is a lack of recognition and there is no other evidence to prove it.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.
① On February 9, 2012, the Defendant used the amount of KRW 2 million at his own expense at the time the Victim Village Assembly, which was the complainant, extracted this Chapter from the victim’s village meeting around February 9, 2012, for village expenses.
-report;