beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. Fact-finding ① There was no "entrusted relationship" between the Defendant and the victim, and there was no intention of embezzlement.
② The amount of embezzlement remains 3.8 million won.
B. Unreasonable sentencing
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. (1) As to the mistake of facts, in the crime of embezzlement as to the existence of a consignment relationship, “the custody of the goods” refers to the status of actual or legal control over the goods, the custody of the goods should be based on the consignment relationship. However, it does not necessarily have to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., but such consignment relationship is also established according to the management of affairs, customs, cooking, and good faith principle.
(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do1778 Decided October 13, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4859 Decided September 11, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1069 Decided December 10, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16315 Decided December 12, 2013, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant and the victim recognized that the Defendant entrusted by D should return to the victim the amount of KRW 50 million, which was returned from the above E, and KRW 30 million paid by the victim (E representative director also recognized that the Defendant and the victim were duly entrusted with the management of the entire amount of KRW 50 million due to the termination of the sales contract, and KRW 30 million,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
(2) The Defendant asserts that the amount of embezzlement (A) is KRW 3.8 million calculated by subtracting the amount of embezzlement from the amount of KRW 30 million (= KRW 30 million - KRW 26.2 million) as well as the amount of KRW 20 million calculated by adding each remittance amount of KRW 10 million as of August 29, 2009 and September 17, 2009, respectively, to the victim, as well as KRW 5 million on February 15, 2011, and KRW 26.2 million on May 4, 2012.
(B) The court below is legitimate.