beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though it can be fully recognized that the defendant received service charges paid to P under the name of support payments and embezzled them at will, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from December 2, 2011 to February 2, 2015, concurrently served as the head of the E Administrative Office, an incorporated association, and the head of the Gwangju Dong-gu L, and worked as the head of M by July 2015.
The Defendant, as the head of M, received a total of KRW 28 million, including KRW 11.2 million, Si expenses, KRW 8.4 million, and KRW 8.4 million, paid from the Dong Office of Gwangju in connection with the N’s business, and was engaged in the storage and use of such KRW 28 million.
Subsidies received from the Dong-gu Office of Gwangju shall be used in accordance with the purpose of the subsidy grant and the details and conditions of the project, and shall not be used for any other purpose, and after the completion of the project, the details of the use of the subsidy shall be submitted to the competent authority for the settlement and return the balance.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, in relation to the N’s “N” operation business, prepared a tax invoice by sound and stage rent, ancillary equipment rent, etc. from June 17, 2014 to November 11, 2014; transferred KRW 9,750,000 from the 111-time Gwangju Bank account to O representative P on July 16, 2014; and embezzled KRW 130,00 won around September 5, 2014; KRW 1310,00 won around September 5, 2014; KRW 570,00 won around November 5, 2014; and then, he/she transferred KRW 11,40,00,000,000, including KRW 1140,000,00,000 from Gwangju National Bank account, an incorporated association, by using it as food rain, etc. at around that time.
B. The lower court’s judgment on the following grounds, i.e., the instant facts charged, after the Defendant paid the service price to P in excess of the actual amount, shall return the excess paid.