beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In order for the victim E to purchase more apartment bonds than one unit, the defendant of mistake of facts paid KRW 10 million out of KRW 75 million, which was remitted from the victim to the previous association members, and paid KRW 5 million each to the real estate business operator who introduced the former association members and the bromoer. Thus, even though there was no intention of embezzlement as to the above KRW 20 million out of KRW 75 million, the court below held that embezzlement of the whole amount of KRW 75 million is established, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances can be acknowledged. (A) While the defendant undergoes the investigation of this case and disbursed 20 million won out of 75 million won for introduction (Evidence records 25,34,54), the victim's primary sale price was KRW 80 million, the second sale price of which was KRW 75 million was the real estate business operator, the real estate business operator was reduced to KRW 5 million out of the expenses (Evidence records 14 and 25). However, the defendant read to the effect that the second sale price was reduced to KRW 5 million out of the expenses because K real estate was omitted (Evidence records 14 and 25).
On August 19, 201, the Defendant stated that when undergoing a prosecutorial investigation on August 19, 201, the amount of KRW 20 million was exceeded to L’s partner (Evidence Record 54 pages), and that when undergoing a prosecutorial investigation on October 25, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to L’s N-president of M real estate (Evidence Record 79 pages) or KRW 15 million for the amount of honorariums or grants (Evidence Record 15 million or KRW 20 million) for former members, the Defendant’s statement on the details of payment is consistent.