beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant and the complainant agree to pay the parts received from F as it is to the complainant and to receive the fees as it is, and thus, found the defendant as a custodian in the crime of embezzlement, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Embezzlement is a crime that punishs a person who keeps another’s property to embezzled such property, and thus, in order to constitute embezzlement, the property that is the subject of embezzlement is required to be owned by another person.
Therefore, the delegated person who received money from a third party for the delegating person based on the delegated person's act is in the relationship of keeping money for the delegating person, at the same time as the entrusted money was received, unless there are special circumstances like the purpose or purpose, and the delegated person is in the relationship of keeping money for the delegating person.
However, the issue of whether the gold prior to receipt received for the delegating upon delegation of administrative affairs ought to be determined by the nature of the legal relationship that caused the receipt and the intent of the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3627, Nov. 10, 2005, etc.).B. The lower court held that the Defendant kept the proceeds of the gold-type parts delivered by F for the complainant, in light of the various circumstances stated in the conduct between 13 and 10 of the judgment on the 2nd page 13 to 3rd page 10.
It is difficult to conclude that the instant facts charged were acquitted on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(c)
In addition to the circumstances duly admitted by the lower court, the following circumstances revealed by the legal doctrine as seen earlier and the records, namely, ① the complainant or his company (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) are F.