beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates the company of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and is engaged in real estate sales agency and rental business. Around March 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) with the company delegated with the authority to sell in lots with respect to F commercial buildings located in Suwon-si E and 12 parcels.
Around May 2010, the Defendant: (a) solicited the Victim I, who is a branch, to sell the above F-based loans to operate a golf range; and (b) made a sales contract with the victim I on the condition that H and the sales price of No. 101,B, 103 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) was KRW 69,60,000 (the contract amount of KRW 70,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 30,000,000,000 and the remainder of KRW 59,60,000).
Since then, the defendant received from the victim the transfer of KRW 20 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the defendant, from May 7, 2010 as the down payment, from the victim, as the down payment, and the same year.
6. Around 25.25. Around that time, the Defendant was transferred to the National Bank Account under the name of the Defendant and was in custody for the victim. Around that time, he/she embezzled the total amount of KRW 40 million by arbitrarily using it for personal purposes, such as payment of acquisition price and repayment of debt related to the contract to acquire the whole of the commercial building, which was concluded separately with H.
2. As to the above charged facts, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 40 million to the Defendant is not the sales contract of the instant commercial building, but the Defendant’s acquisition of the whole of the said F commercial building from H so that the victim could have bought the instant commercial building in a way that the victim would have bought the said F commercial building, or a part of the trade practice range partner
Therefore, the above 40 million won is the case where the defendant embezzled the defendant's remittance from the victim.