beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the mistake of fact, the Defendant did not constitute deception, but did not have the intention to defraud, because the Defendant had the intent or ability to get a broadcast programming.
B. Legal principles are to not be used for any purpose other than drama production without the victim’s consent, and even if the victim Company C by deceiving the victim Company C to obtain KRW 300 million from the account under the name of G, the crime of fraud against the victim Company C is established, so long as the crime of fraud against the victim Company C is established, it is not in the position of custodian under the Criminal Act in relation to G with the said money. Thus, the use of part of the said money thereafter is an ex post facto act of fraud, which
(c)
The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The defendant alleged that the above facts were the same as the alleged facts in the court below's determination, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail by clearly explaining the decision. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
B. As the representative director of the judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles belongs to the sales price that was made by deceiving several parties while carrying out the business of selling commercial buildings, the representative director’s embezzlement of the sales price is an infringement of legal interests other than the infringement of fraud and thus constitutes a separate crime of embezzlement against the victim of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do741, Apr. 29, 2005). Since the money acquired by the defendant by deceiving C and receiving payment from the account in the name of the victim G corporation belongs to the ownership of the victim G corporation, it is fraudulent to use the amount of KRW 165 million among them for personal purposes.