beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The manager of the P Co., Ltd. (P) (hereinafter “P”) made the goods using the original body provided by R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) and Defendant B made the goods using the CMT method or the satisfying method. The clothes produced by the Defendant B are considerably larger than the value of raw materials. As the increase in the value of the goods produced by the processing is considerably larger than the value of raw materials, the ownership is under the proviso of Article 259(1) of the Civil Act. Defendant B transferred the goods to Defendant A according to the practice of the satisfying industry as it is impossible to make the payment of the victim R finally impossible, and thus, Defendant B did not constitute the crime of acquiring stolen goods, and thus, Defendant A’s crime of embezzlement is not established.
2) The ownership of the clothes transferred by Defendant B by Defendant B is against R
하더라도 피고인 A는 의류업계에서 흔하게 이루어지는 소위 ‘ 땡 처리’ 로 인식하고 피고인 B로부터 의류를 매수한 것이므로 피고인 A에게 장물 취득 내지 상표법위반의 고의가 없다.
3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant A of all the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.
B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts, etc.) Defendant B produced the clothing by the CMT method or the satisfying method, rather than by using the original body provided by the victim R, and Defendant B’s clothes produced by the Defendant B are considerably larger than the value of raw materials, and thus, Defendant B is not in a position to keep the property owned by other persons in accordance with the proviso of Article 259(1) of the Civil Act, inasmuch as the increase in the value of raw materials is considerably larger than the value of raw materials.
B) Defendant B is in a position to keep clothes for the purpose of the victim R.
Even if the value of the goods acquired by Defendant B by embezzlement is less than 50 million won, Defendant B’s embezzlement act.