beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. 1) In the crime of embezzlement of occupational crime, the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her occupational duty as his/her own property, such as in fact or in law, and even if he/she wishes to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intention of unlawful acquisition.
Here, the intent of unlawful acquisition lies in the internal deliberation, and thus, if the defendant denies it, the facts constituting such subjective element are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of things given the nature of things. However, in a situation where the whereabouts or the location of the money was unknown even though all the money was stored in the Defendant’s custody, it is insufficient to support the fact that the said money was used in the location of the Defendant’s assertion, because there is insufficient materials to support the fact that the money was used in the location of the Defendant’s assertion, or because the funds used in the location of the Defendant’s assertion were used for other funds than the said money. Rather, in a case where there are considerable evidentiary materials to prove that the Defendant used the said money for personal use, the Defendant embezzled the said money with the intent of unlawful acquisition.
It may be inferred (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16357, Mar. 29, 2012). 2) The lower court embezzled USD 525.28, as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant money”) with the intention of unlawful acquisition on the grounds of the circumstances in its reasoning (referring to the circumstances in paragraphs (a) through (e) of the 45th page of the lower judgment).
The decision was determined.
As to this, the Defendant is “victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).