beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A and the part concerning Defendant B, C, and D shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A. A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) An scenario of misunderstanding the facts regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and Defendant B and C are the victim L Co., Ltd (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”).
(2) The issuance of a promissory note in the name of the victim company was based on the management judgment to prevent the insolvency of the victim company, and thus there was no intention in breach of trust. The issuance of the promissory note in this case was based on abuse of the right of representation. Since Defendant A, the other party, was clearly aware of the abuse of the right of representation, Defendant B and C had no effect on the victim company and there was no special circumstance that the promissorysory note is not distributed to the third party, and there was no risk of property damage to the victim company. Even if Defendant B and C were to be committed with the crime of occupational breach of trust, Defendant A did not actively participate in the act of occupational breach of trust of the above Defendants, and thus, Defendant A cannot be held liable as an accomplice of the crime of occupational breach of trust. (2) In the misunderstanding of the facts on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and C agreed to receive part of the payment from the above Defendant with the funds for the operation of the victim company.
As above, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established by performing the act of paying the progress payment for the construction work according to the agreement between Defendant B and C.
In the end, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established against Defendant A.
Defendant
B and C believed that money, excluding KRW 3.52 billion, out of KRW 3.5 billion, would be re-leased to the victim company, and thus, this part of the facts charged is against the above Defendants.