beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) does not contain any statement as stated in the judgment of the court below, and its content is not false, and there is no possibility of public performance or dissemination in relation to the statement of fact.
2. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, from January 2009 to May 201, 2014,: (a) the victim served as a hardr in the D Beauty Room; (b) first, the Defendant and the victim agreed to divide the profits from the customer in charge of the victim into 6:4 ratio; and (c) as the victim had a large number of entrepreneurs, the victim demanded the Defendant to change the ratio of profit to his/her income; and (d) the profits from the outside business trip in the beauty room from around September 201, the victim demanded the Defendant to change the ratio of profit to his/her income; and (e) the victim was the victim’s profits from the outside business trip in the beauty room
A consistent statement, from June 10, 2008 to June 30, 2014, he/she was in charge of the accounting, etc. of the cosmetic from around June 10, 2008.
R from the Defendant, the victim’s profit from his external business trip is deemed to be the victim’s profit.
In the cosmetic, the Defendant stated that the sales of the cosmetic was aggregated with each other. From around September 201, the victim did not enter the profits earned through the external business trip in the account book, and the amount of sales of the victim was significantly reduced. However, the Defendant did not raise any objection for about two years and six months, and the victim, G, K, and P embezzled the profits from the Defendant’s cosmetic while working at the Defendant’s cosmetic room.
In full view of the facts stated by the Defendant, G, K, and P, the fact that they delivered the contents from the Defendant to the branch or the company's partner, etc., the Defendant is openly false as stated in the lower judgment.