beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. A summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① KRW 200,000 as stated in the [Attachment 12] No. 12 of the List of Crimes (hereinafter “net times”) was used for the purchase of an event-related ticket issued by C Federation.
② On May 14, 2012, KRW 1.5 million stated in paragraph (16) was remitted to the C Federation for the purchase of teaching materials for sanitary education.
③ The amount of KRW 500,000,000, as indicated in paragraph 22, was paid as a lecturer’s expense, and the remaining amount of KRW 200,000,000 was deposited into the special membership fee account of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch on October 18, 2012 (hereinafter “victim’s Branch”).
(4) There is no embezzlement of the remaining money stated in the net time.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is a person who served as the head of the secretariat of the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Association from September 5, 1998 to January 26, 2015, while working as the head of the secretariat of the branch office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
From April 28, 2009 to April 8, 2014, the Defendant embezzled KRW 1,89,000 for the total amount of the public funds of the above branch for eight occasions, such as the list of crimes Nos. 2 through 4, 9, 20, 27, 29, 29, and 33, from around April 28, 2009 to around April 8, 2014.
(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
(3) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case’s deliberation, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant embezzled each of the money as stated in the facts charged.
It is difficult to see it.
The defendant's assertion that this part of the facts is reasonable.
① The amount of KRW 500,000 stated in 2 paragraph (2) is not a matter of expenditure in the audit report attached to the complaint and is not also included in the facts of the complaint.
At the time of the audit, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of supporting evidence for expenditure of this part.
(2) The net three, 4, 3.