beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) In light of the fact that KRW 431,572,270 of the loan of this case was deposited in the bank account of RR Co., Ltd. as to the crime of this case at the time of the original adjudication, and the provisional registration is established on the ground of the land of the HY-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Inc. as security for the loan of this case, the lender of the loan of this case is not the E Co., Ltd. as stated in the facts charged of this case as victims (hereinafter “E”), but the said E Co.
In addition, 20 million won out of the borrowed money of this case was used as the deposit money for the entire office of RR Co., Ltd. and was returned to the E account and used for the company operation funds. Of the borrowed money of this case, the part remitted to the mother K of the defendant is the defendant's salary as the representative director, and the amount remitted to the defendant's living L is also used for the company's purchase cost for gas guns and other equipment in the name of the company, and the above part is used for the company
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) In the original adjudication, it is true that the Defendant issued and delivered a copy of a promissory note in the name of E under the name of E in the name of interest payment to M in the holder of a cover note E.
However, the money borrowed to M is funds for the operation of the E company, and the issuance of a promissory note in the name of the E company for the interest cannot be deemed as a breach of trust that causes damage to the company.
In addition, M is well aware of the fact that the Defendant abused the representative director’s authority and issued the Promissory Notes, so the act of issuing the Promissory Notes in this case is not effective against E, and thus there is no risk of damage to E.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's act does not constitute a breach of trust.
Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending this part.