beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, who is the representative of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), was in charge of selling goods imported by the victimized party while maintaining the business relationship with H. The Defendant was not in the position of a person who keeps the sales proceeds of goods, since the Defendant’s sales proceeds are included in the money owned by the Defendant.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was found to have been in the position of a manager in charge of business in custody of the victim's sales proceeds after selling L with the party in question after selling L with the party in question. The defendant retired from his office in around August 31, 199, and the defendant decided to take charge of the business and the collection of Lbae imported between the victim and Lbae in the trade name of Lbae D, but the defendant transferred the proceeds from Lbae collected from the party in question to the victim in full, and received the proceeds from the victim.
I would like to say.
Even if the defendant was in a partnership with the victim, as alleged by the defendant.
Even if the proceeds from the disposal of the property of the same business are arbitrarily used, the crime of embezzlement is established against the defendant. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.
B. The Defendant did not have any specific criminal record other than a fine once to determine the unfair argument of sentencing, and the Defendant was unable to receive the amount of profit distribution from the injured party, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances. However, in light of the content and result of the instant crime, the liability for the instant crime is not less severe, and the Defendant was in the first instance, and the instant crime was committed.