beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Defendant of the Prosecutor.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the charge of embezzlement of the instant motor vehicle in collusion with the Defendants, and found Defendant B as the custodian, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. The lower court recognized the following facts in the part of the judgment of the lower court regarding Defendant A. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the foregoing fact finding was justifiable, and in light of the above fact finding, the lower court intentionally intended to embezzled the instant motor vehicle to Defendant A at the time.
It is difficult to readily conclude.
Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake about the defendant A is without merit.
① Defendant A’s introduction is a space between Defendant B and Defendant B, known to him.
② Defendant A, while the husband’s vehicle was worn out, did not fully state the husband, was introduced by Defendant B to the Hyundai Motor Business Operator, and entered into a siren contract as shown in the instant charges.
③ However, unlike Defendant A’s thoughts, the husband refused to use a new car, and due to a high penalty, the contract was immediately revoked or there is no other proper method to cancel the contract. As a result of Defendant B’s temporary operation with Defendant B for three months, Defendant B paid the monthly siren fee.
④ Defendant B, who previously borrowed money from D, had offered the vehicle as security by borrowing KRW 15,00,000 from D on January 18, 2016.
At this time, Defendant B was a document necessary to terminate a siren contract and return the vehicle to Defendant A. The documents as stated in the facts charged of this case were delivered to Defendant B and provided to D for security.
5. Since it is impossible to keep the vehicle in custody due to parking problems, D shall pay monthly user fees to Defendant B, and the vehicle shall be again stored in Defendant B.