beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was in dispute between the victims and the victims, and there was no settlement of the amount received as down payment under the circumstances where the payment of the balance was suspended by the purchaser of the instant plant.
In the meantime, an agreement was reached between the buyer of the instant plant and the victims on the payment of the remaining balance, and the settlement was made on September 22, 2015, including KRW 100,000,00,000, the embezzlement as stated in the instant facts charged, in the Goyang Branch of the District Court.
Ultimately, even though the Defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition of KRW 100 million, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Since the business property belongs to the partnership of the partner, as long as the business relationship continues to exist, a partner has no right to dispose of his/her share in the business property at will, and if a partner voluntarily disposes of his/her share or consumess his/her share in the proceeds that he/she acquired from the disposition of the business property at will during the custody of the proceeds that he/she acquired from the disposition of the business property (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do277, Sept. 28, 1982, etc.). In addition, if the settlement of profit and loss distribution between one partner was not made, a partner has no right to dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partner at his/her own discretion. Thus, if a partner arbitrarily embezzleds his/her business property during the custody of the business property, he/she is liable for the crime of embezzlement for the whole amount embezzled at will regardless of his/her share ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3013, Nov. 10, 2000).
person in breach of his or her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself or a third party.