beta
Text
The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.
Reasons
The defendant is a person who actually operates (the state) D and (State) E established for the purpose of building management (the first instance court: the first instance court; the first instance court; the second instance court; the defendant is not guilty). The defendant is a person who actually operates (the state) D and (State) E for the purpose of building management. The defendant is a person who is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, and the second instance court; the second instance court; the defendant is not guilty).
Around August 2010, the Defendant entered into a building management contract with the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant building”) under the said (State D) name. Around October 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for the promotion of commercial revitalization and the management of commercial buildings under the said (State E) name and was engaged in the management of the instant building, including the lease of the instant building, lease deposit, monthly rent, management fee, etc. by May 12, 2015.
Around February 23, 2012, the Defendant entered into a sales contract withG (excluding the amusement room) on the whole third floor of the instant building; around April 14, 2012; (b) around June 7, 2013, by using part of the second floor of the instant building (excluding the amusement room); and (c) from around November 27, 2014 to around November 27, 2014, KRW 32,3420,00 in total under the name of ( state) D (H) bank account in the name of the said (State) and (H), one bank account (I); and (J) from the new bank account to the new bank account, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 30,000 from the new bank account to the personal consumption of KRW 50,000 for the separate owner of the instant building; and (d) transferred the total amount of KRW 160,000 to the personal use of the said personal account by the Defendant from June 28, 2013.
Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled KRW 53.2 million, which was kept on duty for the victims, by discretionary consumption.
The prosecutor described as “(State)L”, but corrected “(State)G”.
The essence of embezzlement is a person who violated a fiduciary relationship and was under custody.