beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of the preliminary charges of this case with the purport that F, in order for the defendant to pay the unpaid remaining amount of money to the defendant under the sales contract for each land of this case entered into between the defendant and I, the former owner of each land of this case, and that the defendant also entrusted F, to F, the defendant was in the status of custody of KRW 159 million for F, by promising to use the said money and being entrusted with it in accordance with such purpose and purpose, and thereby, the defendant wired KRW 75 million to I while keeping KRW 159 million for F, and embezzled the remaining amount of KRW 84 million for voluntary consumption.
2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
Since embezzlement is a crime punishing a person who keeps another's property to embezzled such property, so the property subject to embezzlement is required to be owned by another person in order to be established, and the entrusted money with the purpose and purpose of embezzlement is reserved to the truster until it is used for the specified purpose and purpose, and if the trustee arbitrarily consumes it, it constitutes embezzlement.
(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the crime of embezzlement is not established, barring any special circumstance, in a case where the act of delivering money has the nature of repayment as a contractual performance of a contractual obligation. However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, even if the other party arbitrarily consumess the money that the other party received with the repayment, given that the money was delivered to the other party, and the ownership is transferred to the other party.
B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the Defendant was on August 1, 2008.