횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal held that there was no subsidy from the Office of Education to return to the victim as the Defendant spent money in excess of the embezzled amount for the victim, but there was no subsidy from the Office of Education to return to the victim and no private teaching institute expenses. However, the Defendant did not pay the money to the victim on behalf of the victim, and the child-care center uniforms and gymnasiums, etc. are goods that the victim was not obligated to return to the victim, and 9.30,000 won deposited by the Defendant on September 27, 2010 were immediately returned to the victim. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant
2. Determination
A. On March 2, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim E to transfer the said art education institute at either KRW 13,000,000,000 operated by the Defendant in Songpa-gu Seoul, and the said childcare center at KRW 10,00,000. On January 2, 2010, the Defendant already received KRW 1,00,000 as the down payment of the art education institute; at the same time, as the intermediate payment of the said contract, KRW 9,00,00 as the intermediate payment of the art education institute; and at the same time, KRW 6,00,000 as the down payment and the intermediate payment of the childcare center; and around April 29, 2010, KRW 3,000 as the remainder of the art education institute.
The Defendant received the payment as above on March 2, 2010, and on the same day, delivered the victims a private teaching institute to deliver it to the private teaching institute and operated the private teaching institute from that date. However, it was impossible to change the name of the president of the private teaching institute in the situation where the private teaching institute was provided to the private teaching institute. Accordingly, the office of education subsidies and the private teaching institute fees were deposited into the Defendant’s account after the above date. However, since the victim operated the private teaching institute, the subsidies and the private teaching institute fees of the office of education after the above date were money owned by the victim.
around April 29, 2010, the Defendant remains 3,000. < Amended by Act No. 6310, Apr. 29, 2000>