beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the defendants A and B, each of the convictions against the defendants A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found Defendant A, B, C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing 1) to be guilty of some facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C is either erroneous or misunderstanding of legal principles as follows.
A) The total amount of KRW 9.415.7 billion transferred from Defendant A, B, and C N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) to the accounts in the name of V was paid for the actual performance of the project draft contracts entered into between M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) and N (hereinafter “PM contracts”).
In addition, the five accounts with the above money deposited are M’s borrowed account and Defendant B’s borrowed account is not a borrowed name account.
Although the above domestic money is not a legitimate service price under the PMF contract, 4.29 billion won, which was remitted around January 22, 2007, should be repaid to the housing guarantee for the implementation of the Incheon BC apartment project. Thus, the above 4.29 billion won cannot be recognized as the intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.
B) The amount of KRW 500 million paid by Defendant A, B, N around May 2010 to P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) is a loan and the amount of KRW 8.5 billion paid to P after September 30, 2010 is an investment amount.
In particular, 3.1 billion won transferred from the N account to the Agricultural Cooperative account on September 2010 is a unilateral transfer from N to the Agricultural Cooperative which is the lending institution on the ground of N's joint and several guarantee, and thus does not constitute embezzlement.
C) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (Defendant A and B) is not a crime of embezzlement in the name of payment of the unpaid amount to T, and this part of the Act does not constitute a crime of embezzlement.
For household V: