beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant demanded an excessive agreement amount of KRW 550,000,000,000 and withdrawn and used it after receiving the remittance without any verification procedure; (b) even if the above amount was fully withdrawn from the account on the same day, the Defendant, who is in the position of the custodian, can be deemed as embezzlement, but the Defendant’s refusal of the victim’s request for return after the date may be deemed as embezzlement; (c) so
2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.
The crime of embezzlement is a crime with the content that a person who keeps another's property embezzled or refuses to return the property.
In this case, in order to constitute embezzlement, the Defendant should have refused to return the wrongfully remitted money from the victim, etc. on or around June 2014, even though the Defendant received a request from the victim, etc., but the Defendant was in the position of keeping the money from the victim.
Therefore, even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant kept the amount of KRW 550,000 received by mistake from the injured party until June 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same differently (it is separate from whether the Defendant, civil, bears the obligation to return unjust benefits equivalent to KRW 550,000,000,000,000,000,000). Rather, the Defendant withdrawn and used all of the aforementioned money as long as it was long as the Defendant received the aforementioned money, and as a result, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the injured party erroneously remitted money to the Defendant and requested the return of the money, and the said money had already been consumed in full. Furthermore, as long as the Defendant had kept the property of the victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
On the other hand, the defendant is 50,000 won.