beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
An application for remedy by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
From January 9, 2012 to May 20, 2015, the Defendant engaged in the management of restaurant and price at “D cafeteria” operated by the victim C.
On July 12, 2013, the Defendant received 142,00 won of the credit food of customer F from a D restaurant located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, to a new bank account (G) account in the name of the Defendant, not a restaurant operator, and used at will around the time of his/her occupational storage for the victim for private purposes, such as living expenses, etc. for the victim, and embezzled 30,823,000 won in total over 220 times, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from May 4, 2015.
Summary of Evidence
1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;
1. Each legal statement of witness C and H;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including part concerning C’s statement);
1. A copy of an applicant, or the application of a new bank account statute;
1. Articles 356 and 355(1) (a) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts in relation to the crime [the defendant and his/her defense counsel] [the defendant and his/her defense counsel have received credit payment to the defendant's account as stated in the indictment, but all of them have been delivered to the victim in cash, so it does not constitute embezzlement.
The argument is asserted.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) if the defendant delivered the credit payment received by the defendant to the victim, there was an account used by the victim in connection with the operation of the restaurant, and thus, it was more reasonable to transfer the credit payment to the above account to the above account to the victim for the future dispute prevention, and therefore, it was an exceptional method in light of the above points, and the defendant did not have any particular evidence between the victim and the victim in the process, and (ii) the defendant returned to the victim.
The amount claimed is the status of the defendant who managed the credit payment.