beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The ownership of consigned goods on consignment shall be owned by the mandator with respect to the embezzlement, and the sale proceeds thereof shall revert to the truster simultaneously with the receipt of the ownership; and
Therefore, the crime of embezzlement is established if the commission agent arbitrarily uses or consumes the goods consigned or the sales proceeds, barring special circumstances.
(2) The court below’s decision and evidence duly admitted by the court below revealed the following: (a) the Defendant, who operated a gold bank, offered that the Defendant would deposit the gold bank with the victim and pay a certain amount of profit every month by operating the gold and cash in the manner of accident waves according to the market price, and return the gold and cash kept in his/her custody at any time at the victim’s request; (b) the victim received a certain amount of money or cash equivalent thereto five times from September 5, 2005 to July 27, 2007, as stated in the facts charged, from September 5, 2005 to July 27, 2007; and (c) the Defendant paid a certain amount of money or cash equivalent thereto to it to the victim; and (d) the Defendant paid a monthly profit to the victim; and (e) the Defendant used the money and cash kept in his/her custody for the victim as the economic situation worsens.
In light of the above facts, the victim would be deemed to have sold the money owned by the defendant to the defendant while making use of his experience and knowledge. In light of the above legal principles, when the victim entrusted the defendant with the sale and purchase of the money or cash acquired by the defendant is owned by the victim, and the defendant's use of the money in repayment, etc. of his personal obligation constitutes embezzlement.
Although the reasoning of the lower court partially inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and there is a legal doctrine as to the custodian’s status in embezzlement.