The case that reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground of incomplete deliberation and violation of the rules of evidence.

The case that reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds of incomplete deliberation and violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jin-jin

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No5952 delivered on December 9, 1986

Supreme Court Decision 86Do1026 Decided August 18, 1986

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below determined that the defendant conspired with the non-indicted 1's former commercial accounting officer in collusion with the above non-indicted 1's office's employees for the embezzlement of some of the money deposited in accordance with the deposit procedure set out in the above commercial accounting officer's office's book while the defendant was in office, and that the remaining amount can not be found from the embezzlement of the money deposited in the defendant's office's office's own account book, and that the defendant can not be found from the embezzlement of this part of the money deposited in the embezzlement of this case's office's account book, and that the defendant's above embezzlement of this part of the money deposited in the embezzlement of this case's office's account book can not be found to be different from the above embezzlement of the money deposited in the embezzlement of this case's office's own account book, but it can be found that there is a difference between the money deposited in the embezzlement of this case's account book and the money deposited in the embezzlement of this case's account book.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the above company's general manager's punishment shall be imposed on the company's general manager's punishment and shall be imposed on the company's general manager's business area, nine employees including the defendant, etc., and the managing director's general manager and four employees such as the non-indicted, etc. shall be in charge of the accounting field. The trading and deposit method of the above company's general manager's trading and deposit money shall first be established in the company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's funds's company's company's company's company's company's funds's trading funds's company's company's trading funds's company's company's company's funds.

Therefore, if there is a difference by comparing the entries in the transaction ledger, the receipts and disbursements, and the daily balance sheet, the difference shall be deemed to have been embezzled without having actually deposited in the company. Furthermore, in order to recognize that the difference between the entries in the transaction ledger and the statement in the current status sheet are embezzled in collusion between the defendant and the non-indicted, the statement in the transaction ledger shall be prepared by the person who prepared the transaction ledger, and the statement in the current status sheet shall be recorded accurately, and it shall be kept in full as is, and the amount of each date entered in the transaction ledger shall be presumed to have been deposited by the defendant.

However, according to the list of the current status of the money seized as evidence for conviction adopted by the court below, the current status of the money, which is without the approval of the regular director without the above regular approval process, which is not recorded in the name of the author, which is not recorded in the name of the defendant, which is shown to have been forged or altered by the defendant. If the customer's person in charge of the business deposits the money into the commercial office or into the bank of the commercial office, the current status of the money is not recorded in the name of the defendant, and is even prepared in the name of the head of the business division, and even prepared in the name of the head of the management division, the defendant's understanding, Kim Dong-dong, the user's line, and the maximum number of the money table are found to correspond to the assertion that the defendant did not hold office on the processed goods or date of preparation, and the current status table of the money deposited in the name store and loyalty store are not prepared, and even if the current status of the money table is kept, it is likely that it may be lost even in the process of keeping it.

In full view of these points, it cannot be concluded that the current status table of the gold is not prepared by a legitimate preparing authority or accurately stated the current status of the gold, and it cannot be readily concluded that the entire current status table is preserved as it is. Therefore, the fact-finding of the lower court, which is premised on the authenticity and accuracy of the entire current status table, is at least erroneous.

In addition, according to the testimony of the court below prior to remand, each letter of confirmation prepared by 27 members, such as the right person in charge of customer receipts in the region where the defendant is in charge of the defendant's business, is demanded to prepare and submit an objection for the reason that it is necessary to confirm the full payment of the fee. Since the fact that the defendant stated the fee in each letter of confirmation is merely the fact that the person in charge of the fee in charge was the defendant, and it is merely the fact that the amount equivalent to the money was deposited through the employees of the commercial store, not the defendant, it can be seen that the amount of the money was deposited by the employees of the commercial store. Thus, even according to the testimony of the party in charge of the defendant's account books, it cannot be concluded that the amount of money deposited by the customer in the trading ledger of the defendant's account book was the money deposited by the defendant, and even if it is based on the testimony of the party in charge of the defendant's account books, it cannot be concluded that the amount of money deposited by the defendant's account books of the court below and the defendant's account books can not be found that the money deposited.

Therefore, without examining the above evidence in detail, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by adopting the evidence which is not reliable or contradictory to the evidence and insufficient evidence to be materials for fact-finding, based on the fact that there is a difference between the amount entered in the list of receipts and disbursements prepared by the defendant and the amount entered in the trading ledger prepared by the defendant. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)