The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) erroneous determination of facts (as to occupational embezzlement), the Defendant acquired the damage claim against the damaged company due to the defect of the power-saving device entrusted by the victimized company for sale, and only exercised the commercial lien against the instant power measuring instrument in order to secure the above damage claim, and did not return the said power measuring instrument with the intent to obtain it.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. A. Around April 2, 2012, the Defendant entered into a sales agency agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the victim company ENS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) on the power-saving equipment produced by the victim company (hereinafter “the instant saving equipment”) (hereinafter “the instant contract”), and kept the power-saving equipment, which is equipment measuring power consumption from the victim company, in order to assess the efficiency of power-saving equipment (hereinafter “the instant power measuring instrument”), at least KRW 9.2 million at four market prices, which is equipment measuring power consumption by the victim company, for the purpose of assessing the efficiency of power-saving equipment (hereinafter “the instant power measuring instrument”).
On March 7, 2014, the defendant notified the victim company of the termination of the contract of this case, and the victim company, around March 17, 2014, returned the above power measuring instrument to the victim company.
Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to return four of the above power measuring instruments without justifiable grounds and embezzled them.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.
(c) judgment of the immediate deliberation;