beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. It is true that the injured party of the grounds for appeal arbitrarily uses the public funds of the senior citizens' meeting, such as the printed materials in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the printed materials in this case”).
In addition, the defendant's act constitutes grounds for excluding illegality since he distributed the printed matter for the public interest of the members of the Senior Citizens' Association.
In doing so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant filed a complaint for occupational embezzlement on the grounds that he/she arbitrarily consumed the victim's 3,120,000 won from January 23, 2011 to June 27, 2012 at the senior citizens' meeting, but the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office dismissed the defendant's petition on October 26, 2012. The defendant's petition for a non-prosecution disposition was dismissed on February 21, 2013. ② The defendant filed a complaint again with the victim for occupational embezzlement of the same contents as occupational embezzlement around 2013, but the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office rejected the defendant's petition for a non-prosecution disposition on August 23, 2013 (in short of evidence), and the defendant filed a complaint for non-prosecution disposition on this issue with the investigative agency on the victim's telephone call and the victim's petition for a non-prosecution disposition on several occasions.
The facts stated to the effect that “” can be recognized.
In full view of the above facts and the contents of the decision on non-prosecutions, the contents of the inducement in this case are contrary to the decision on non-prosecutions and the decision on dismissal of the application for adjudication, and the defendant is an applicant for the ruling on interest which is the complainants.