beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who actually operates G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).
Defendant H, the branch of the Defendant, set up a right to collateral security on his/her own real estate as a security with regard to KRW 2.4 billion loans extended by the Industrial Bank of Korea of the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”). However, the Industrial Bank of Korea, which was unable to repay this loan, subrogatedly performed the said right to collateral security, and the Defendant, on November 25, 2010, entered into a contract to acquire ownership by transfer of 13 machinery, such as the 200 Formula 2, which is owned by the victimized Company (hereinafter “the instant machinery”), and acquired ownership by means of possession amendment.
On the ground that the creditors of the victimized company, including workers who were not paid wages, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the act of deception on the ground that the above transfer contract constitutes the act of deception, and on September 6, 2012, the Cheongju District Court rendered a judgment that “a cancellation of the above machinery transfer contract concluded between the defendant and H with the victimized company and delivery of the instant machine to the victimized company” (hereinafter “the judgment on the act of deception in this case”) was finalized on the 26th of the same month, and thus, the defendant was obligated to return the instant machine to the victimized company.
Accordingly, while the Defendant kept the instant machinery for the damaged company, he/she embezzled the instant machinery in total amounting to KRW 1,113,900,000 in a light place from November 201 to May 2013, 2013.
2. The evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor alone that the Defendant transferred the instant machinery to G during the period from November 201 to May 2013, 2012, which was after the judgment of the instant suicide became final and conclusive.
It is difficult to readily conclude, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if the Defendant transferred the instant machine to G after the judgment on the instant act was finalized.