beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) 1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) embezzlement part (A) of money in the name of the acquisition price of a Chinese golf course (hereinafter “R”) made a person take over a Chinese golf course by making a loan of R's funds to AP (hereinafter “AP”) due to managerial necessity, and around April 29, 2010, the money deposited from a corporate bank account in the name of AP to be the acquisition price of a Chinese golf course was personally raised by the Defendant, and the AP or A Q (hereinafter “AP”) is not a compliance. In light of the fact that there was no criminal intent of embezzlement.
(B) Furthermore, 60 million won out of the acquisition price of a golf course in China was loaned by Q Q as collateral from the Samwon Savings Bank. Thus, even if the offering of real estate owned by R as collateral constitutes a crime of breach of trust, the crime of embezzlement against R is not established against the above 600 million won.
(2) The Defendant’s embezzlement of money under the pretext of the drinking value paid to AS is not charged with embezzlement, regardless of the purpose of use, since all of the money paid to AS in the form of a drinking value.
(3) The Defendant recognized that the part of embezzlement of money given to F lent F a sum of KRW 1.225 million to F without having agreed upon due date or having provided collateral. However, the Defendant entered into an agreement with F to pay interest above statutory interest, and the Defendant entered into an agreement with F to pay interest above statutory interest. In light of the circumstances leading up to the difference between the customer’s president and the disbursement resolution, the details of accounting process, and the details of partial repayment of loan, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit embezzlement.
Even if embezzlement is recognized, the crime of embezzlement is established against R, because the defendant's total of KRW 1.225 billion paid to F is not R but AP's funds.