beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is to operate a wedding hall jointly with C, and Defendant E (hereinafter “E”).
In the process of the construction of weddings by jointly investing half of the year following the establishment thereof, the sum of KRW 50 million borrowed from a third party, such as one’s own money, KRW 100 million, and KRW 200,000,000,000 from a third party, such as I, and S, for each of the lack of investment funds, was disbursed as construction expenses, and thereafter, the sum of KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(1) The Defendant’s payment of construction costs in excess of the foregoing agreement to preferentially cover the repayment of the borrowed money (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”).
2) Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant used the instant money in such circumstances and constitutes embezzlement, or that there was an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition, which is the criminal intent of embezzlement. Nevertheless, the lower court’s finding that the instant money used by the Defendant was embezzled under the aforementioned circumstances was due to erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and thus, is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspension of execution in one and half years of imprisonment) is too heavy.
B. Prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too minor.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court determined that the Defendant, based on the evidence adopted and investigated, could be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had embezzled the instant money by arbitrarily using the instant money without the instant settlement agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not accept the said assertion. 2) The lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion.