beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case since it can be found that the defendant is a custodian of the automobile of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the automobile of this case") in D, but the court below acquitted the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract for the lease of facilities with the Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. in the name of the Defendant at around June 201, 201, which was operated by the Defendant at the time of March 3, 2011; and (b) entered into a contract for the lease of facilities with the Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was operated by the Defendant at around that time; and (c) took custody of one motor vehicle in D, the injured party’s market price of KRW 86,80,00, which is the victim’s possession; and (d) paid rent remaining after succession to the said contract, the Defendant arbitrarily set it out to E at the place of
Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the court below, the court below held that the defendant paid rent on behalf of B while receiving the pertinent car from B on June 2013 as stated in the facts charged, and offered the said car as security to E on or around June 2013. However, it is recognized by the record as follows: (a) the defendant did not take any procedure to succeed to rights and obligations between Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. at the time of delivery of the said car from B; (b) as the defendant did not pay the above rent, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. terminated the facility lease contract against B and requested the return of the said car; (c) however, B did not refund the said car to the defendant as above; and (d) on January 16, 2014 related to the delivery of the said car to the defendant.