beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
In the 2nd sentence of the 4th page, the market value of the 68.5 million won was embezzled.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the case of misunderstanding the legal principles [2016 Highest 2715], the judgment of the court below that recognized the amount equivalent to the value of the above car as the embezzlement amount, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is acceptable based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. As such, the Defendant’s embezzlement of 68.5 million won at the market price in custody for the victim S., the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as pointed out by the Defendant in its conclusion.
① On May 2015, 2015, the Defendant offered U as security a vehicle of 68.5 million won Sz S350 (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) owned by the victim at the Suwon-si AL coffee shop in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon, the Defendant borrowed KRW 23 million from U.S.
② At the time of offering the instant car as security, the Defendant issued to U a personal seal certificate in the name of the victim, a vehicle registration certificate, a vehicle storage certificate in the name of the Defendant, and a power of attorney (Evidence No. 42 pages of evidence and U.S. Witness). ③ The contents of the said power of attorney at the prosecutor’s office are as follows.
There is no need for the victim's name because only the certificate of identification and the certificate of vehicle registration can be sold to the large vehicle.
“The statement was made.”
U also thought that “The vehicle itself is the benz, so I would not waive the vehicle with its amount.”