beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he embezzled the money received as a down payment from the victim for his personal purpose, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates the company called the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and is engaged in real estate sales agency and lease business. On March 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) with the company that was delegated with the authority to sell lots with respect to the F Commercial Building located outside 12 lots of land within the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was delegated by G (hereinafter “G”) and entered into a sales agency contract with the said company.
Around May 2010, the Defendant: (a) solicited the Victim I, who is a branch, to sell the F-based loans to operate the golf practice range together; (b) concluded a sale contract with H and the sales price of KRW 69,60,000 (the contract amounting to KRW 70 million, intermediate payment to KRW 30,000,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 59,60,000,000,000,000) with the victim No. 103, 103, and 101,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
Since then, the defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim as the down payment from May 7, 2010 to the agricultural bank account under the name of the defendant, and received the money from the victim as the down payment.
6. Around 25.25. Around that time, the Defendant received money of KRW 20 million from a national bank account under the name of the Defendant to transfer to the bank account in the name of the Defendant and was in custody for the victim, and embezzled it by using it at will for personal purposes, such as payment of acquisition price and repayment of debt related to the contract to acquire the whole commercial building, which was concluded separately with H.
B. The key issue of the instant case is that of the Defendant around May 7, 2010 and June 25, 2010.