beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
The court below's scope of adjudication in this court rejected C's application for compensation, and the applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation (Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and the part rejecting application for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of adjudication in this court as it is separated and finalized from the accused case
Defendant
In the process of dealing with the G M&A-related business for C, Defendant B asserted the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below (Article 1-A-A-B) as to the grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below, the amount of KRW 20 million out of the amount to be delivered to Co-Defendant A (the “Co-Defendant” within the “Co-Defendant 2”) was deducted as one’s own expense with A’s consent in the process of dealing with the G M&A-related business. This would be justified as an act that could expect C’
Judgment
Presumption acceptance refers to the case where it is anticipated that the victim would have naturally accepted if he/she had known the contents of the act in light of all objective circumstances at the time of the act even though the victim did not have actually consented.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081 Decided March 24, 2006, etc.). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant received a payment from C to A, and received a transfer of KRW 450 million from C to his/her account, and “A confirms that it has used KRW 45 million in its own name, and receives a receipt from the recipient of the said money.” Of them, the Defendant received an instruction that “A has used KRW 20 million in its own use and delivered the remaining KRW 430 million in its use, and the Defendant did not obtain an explicit consent from C, and there is no circumstance to deem that it is impossible or considerably difficult to obtain the consent from C at that time.”