beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not pay KRW 10 million as a security deposit to G out of the Council’s public funds of KRW 30 million, which the Defendant paid KRW 20 million as security deposit, and both he paid KRW 30 million as security deposit. However, even though the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from G and consumed it individually, the Defendant did not have any intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The court below's sentence (the fine of 4 million won) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, G is recognized as a security deposit that only KRW 10 million was paid out of the public funds of the Council, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was received from the Council as a security deposit and lent it to the defendant individually.
In particular, G’s statement that only KRW 10 million was received as security deposit is consistent and reliable, G does not agree to lend KRW 20 million received as public funds of the Council among the Defendant to the Defendant to the Defendant without permission, and even if G separately receives KRW 200,000,000 per month from the Defendant as interest, it is reasonable to view that the above KRW 2,00,000 as real loan interest is not a loan interest even if it was received separately from the monthly rent of KRW 40,000 from the Defendant, and all KRW 6,00,000 as a monthly rent. In full view of the fact that the Defendant consumed KRW 20,000 for personal use, but after the investigation of the instant case began, the Defendant’s embezzlement and the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition is recognized, and thus, it is found guilty.
The defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
Defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing.