횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the instant land and buildings are transferred to E for the purpose of bond security, and as such, E is entitled to acquire the ownership of the instant land and buildings only after completing liquidation procedures prescribed by the Provisional Registration Security Act.
E does not have to go through the liquidation procedures, so the person with the right to a lawsuit of the land and building in this case shall be the defendant.
The money paid by the lessee under the instant building lease agreement belongs to the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, and thus, the money received by the Defendant cannot be deemed as another person’s property.
In the related civil case, E recognizes that there is no obligation to return the deposit to lessees, and even if so, the defendant is not in the position of a person who keeps the deposit.
must be viewed.
The lower court held otherwise that the Defendant was in the status of keeping the lease deposit received under the instant building lease agreement for E
The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant “D” Dong (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) on the ground of Dong-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Yananan-gu”).
The building of this case was newly constructed with the so-called "studio" (hereinafter referred to as "studio") and borrowed approximately KRW 400 million from victims E.
As the Defendant did not change this, on December 17, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victim on the instant land for the security of the said claim, and around February 11, 2011, changed the name of the building permission in the name of the victim on the instant building.
The instant building was completed on May 2012, and the ownership preservation registration was completed in the name of the victim on May 12, 2012.
On the other hand, the defendant on October 18, 201, concerning the room room of the building of this case from the victim on October 18, 201.