beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the attached list of crimes.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) It is clear that the victims, when making an offer to sell 72,90,00 won per annum No. 1-24 of the list of crimes in the annexed Form 1,290,000, the sum of 1-24,000 won of the list of crimes in the annexed Form 2, the victims were to act as the subscriber and the other subscribers, the subscription amount was paid 20% of the subscription amount as allowances, agreed to be fully appropriated for the remainder of the subscription amount in advance, and part of the subscription amount was used as expenses for the sales business, such as the allowance, or was aware of it in light of the empirical rule. However, since the sale of the sale after the rapid progress of the sale business, it is nothing more than civil default, and it cannot be punished as occupational embezzlement because the intention of illegal acquisition or embezzlement was not recognized. 2) The agreement that the victim E shall pay 15% of the principal amount in total on two occasions, including the total amount of the subscription amount, from 48 million won to 200, G.1212000.
7. 1. By the 1.50,000 won per day, 1.5 million won interest was paid in total over 10,000 won, and the contract for subscription claimed by the victim is merely an offer of F new loan as collateral, prepared by the victim as a collateral.
3) The Defendant was unable to prepare KRW 21 million, totaling KRW 25,27,29-35,000,000,000,000,000,000 per annum of the annexed crime list of the crimes committed by the Defendant, which was KRW 25,27,29-35,000, to be paid to the (ju)P, and was not a situation where (ju) C representative director was retired from July 1, 201, and the Defendant managed the subscription money with the wind in all business related to the subscription money. Therefore, the said money is not deposited into the (ju)C account, but is irrelevant to the Defendant, with the money paid from the (ju) Qua to the sales subscription money in connection with a new loan operated by G. 4) as above, not only did the crime of occupational embezzlement be established, but also acquired the Defendant’s intent.