All Defendants and the Prosecutor’s Appeal are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, H is merely an assistant in possession of heavy equipment parts released from a factory in G, and thus, not a custodian of the material subject of embezzlement, but also an act of arbitrarily selling H’s heavy equipment parts cannot be deemed an embezzlement. Thus, Defendant A’s introduction of the part of the used equipment parts upon H’s request, or the purchase of directly used equipment parts from H cannot be regarded as a crime of aiding and selling stolen goods.

This part of the argument is a new argument that was made after the deadline for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal was expired, and thus cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

Since the custody of property in embezzlement refers to the state of de facto or legal control over the property, the custody must be based on the consignment relationship. However, it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and it is also established by administrative management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle.

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court on December 12, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16315, Dec. 12, 201): (a) around June 201, H had an occupational authority to deliver products stored in G factories, while engaging in the management and sale of equipment parts among the employees in charge of managing and selling equipment parts at the Daejeon Branch Operation Team; and (b) in fact, he/she had a de facto legal control over the part of equipment sold in G based on the consignment relationship derived from the employment contract entered into with G, by means of electronic manipulation, etc. before the discovery into G.