beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant was aware that there is a dispute over the business in which F and some of F are in partnership with the victim E in the operation D of the Defendant located in Gangseo-gu Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan around September 2012, the Defendant rejected the instant charges on the ground that, “F will bring about a 100P while keeping it at the outside of its office because it was able to bring about at any time because it was able to bring it to the outside of its office,” and that, at around 13:00 of the same month, the Defendant received 100P from the victim and kept it for the victim, even though the Defendant was demanded by the victim to return the 100P from October 10 of the same year to the first 10 of the same year, the Defendant refused to return it.
2. The defendant's defense counsel and the defendant's defense counsel stated that the crime of embezzlement is not established even if the defendant refused to return 100P, on the ground that the defendant set a pledge right at 100P, which was placed on the guarantee against the victim's claim.
3. Determination
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
B. “Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against a custodian. As such, in order to constitute embezzlement, the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return is insufficient to the extent that the refusal of return is deemed to be the same as the embezzlement, taking into account the grounds for refusal of return and the subjective intent. The so-called intent of illegal acquisition in embezzlement is that the so-called “the person who keeps another’s property.”