beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The defendant and the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim Co., Ltd.") made a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the custodian status of embezzlement, and the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim Co., Ltd.") contributed the purchase cost of clothes, and the defendant made a partnership agreement similar to the partnership that distributes to 40 (the defendant) a sales business of inventory by contributing business know-how on the purchase, storage and sale of carry-over or inventory.
Accordingly, in the meantime, the Defendant purchased clothing and sold them in the warehouse at the expense of the Defendant, and sold them in its own judgment. In the process, the Defendant first delivered clothing to the seller and sold them in the so-called “credit transaction” method which was later paid over several months.
As such, the defendant was entrusted to purchase or sell clothing, so the defendant did not need to obtain permission from the victim company at the time of purchasing or selling clothing.
Therefore, the defendant is not in the position of keeping the goods of the victim company.
Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the crime of embezzlement by deeming the Defendant as having the status of custodian in custody of the victim company’s goods. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the status of custodian or by misapprehending the legal doctrine
The fact-finding of the intent of embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition or the misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant prepared and delivered a certificate of custody of goods to the victim company on July 25, 2017 is merely prepared and delivered by the victim company in the sense of confirming the existence and quantity of clothes and thus, it does not change the contents of the partnership agreement between the defendant and the victim company as seen in the above paragraph 1.
Therefore, the defendant is now to G, H, and I.