A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

1. A.

2. B

3. b. C.

Lee Jae-ho (Public Prosecution) and finger-young (public trial)

Law Firm D (for Defendant A)

Attorney E, F

Law Firm G (Defendant B)

Attorney H, I

Attorney J (Korean Tribunal for Defendant C)

June 27, 2014

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant B and C

A. Summary of the facts charged

【Status of Parties, etc.】

From June 2010, Defendant B was engaged in activities to raise business funds of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) which implements L new construction business and commercial facility development business (hereinafter referred to as “M”) on the land of 11,219.8 square meters (3,393 square meters) located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from Jun. 201, Defendant B entered into a sales contract to acquire 50% of shares issued by M and 3 billion won from N who operated M around January 27, 201.

Defendant C entered into an agreement with Defendant B on January 28, 201 and succeeds to the status of the purchaser of the above Defendant B by entering into an agreement on the transfer and takeover of the corporation.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 27, 2011, the Defendants presented a sales contract, etc. on January 27, 201, in the office of Q&C Co., Ltd. for the 3rd victims of the Seocho-gu Seoul Building, that “M Co., Ltd. is running a new construction business on land located in Ilyang-gu, Goyang-gu, the company is running a new construction business on the land located in Ilyang-gu, Young-gu, and the success of the business is a business with a high profitability of 10 billion won as much as the profit-making day. Our plans to take over the above company. When investing KRW 1 billion, the Defendants will return the remaining KRW 50 million within 30 million within 1 billion and the remaining KRW 500 million within 6 months and transfer 23% of the above M’s shares free of charge under the pretext of interest thereon, etc.”

However, at the time, the Defendants did not have any particular property or income, and the above M did not receive any payment from the owners of the land of this case, which is the site for the above L new construction and the commercial facility development project, and had been placed in a situation where it was difficult to continue the development project due to the fact that there was no particular property or sales, and that there was no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest or transfer 23% of the shares to the owners of the land of this case, which is the site for the above L new construction and the commercial facility development project. Moreover, in the case of M shares that the Defendants agreed to transfer to R and S, the representative of M, and that they would transfer the shares to the victims, around September 17, 2010, they had already received KRW 500 million as the down payment.

In addition, the Defendants did not notify the victims of the fact that N would transfer M 10% of the shares and management rights to R and S around September 17, 2010, and that at that time the Defendants received KRW 500 million as the down payment, and that there was a legal dispute between N and S with respect to the transfer contract as of September 17, 2010, and that there was no notification of the fact that there was a legal dispute between N and N., and that around January 27, 201, there was no special agreement that Defendant B would receive KRW 50 billion of the shares that Defendant B decided to transfer from N to S as above, and that the share share issue, including the down payment and the refund of penalty, should be received KRW 3 billion.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to induce the victims as above, and the Defendants received a total of KRW 400 million from Q office around January 28, 201, and around January 31, 201, in front of the foreign exchange bank located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and acquired KRW 600 million from each other, such as receiving a total of KRW 1 billion from each other, in front of the foreign exchange bank located in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

B. Summary of the case

1) Defendant B

A) Co-defendant C is the subject of investment that made an investment agreement with the victim and received KRW 1 billion, and the Defendant did not have conspired with Co-Defendant C.

B) The Defendant is not a party to an investment agreement with the victim, and there is no obligation to notify the victim of legal disputes regarding the cancellation of the M& Transfer Agreement between N and S.

C) Even if the defendant has the above duty of disclosure, the circumstance that there is a dispute over the existence and cancellation of the above contract between N and S cannot be deemed as an obstacle to the realization of the right under the investment agreement between the victim and the co-defendant, so there was no duty of disclosure on such circumstances.

2) Defendant C.

A) The investment agreement between the defendant and the victim is very favorable to the victim, and the term of return of the invested principal was set at the time of an investment agreement between the defendant and the victim, but it does not necessarily have to return the invested principal until that time limit, but it is the content that the defendant’s M shares are transferred to the victim if the time limit is not observed. As such, the victim is naturally expected to be unable to return the invested principal within the agreed time limit and delivered the investment amount. Therefore, the defendant cannot be said to have deceiving the intent and ability to return

B) It is true that the Defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that there was a legal dispute over the fact that the Defendant entered into a M Share Transfer Agreement between N and S when entering into an investment agreement with the victim, and whether the said agreement was terminated or terminated by Co-Defendant B, and thus, did not notify it. In addition, the said agreement was already rescinded at the time.

C) Even if the N and S contract is valid, there is no priority among the contracts, and the N will be effective for whom the N will be liable for the nonperformance of the obligation. Therefore, the fact of concluding the contract between N and S and the non-performance of the obligation is not affected by the exercise of the rights by the victim, and there is no obligation to notify the victim of such fact.

(c) basic facts1);

1) Progress of the instant development project

① From July 24, 2009 to September 23, 2009, M (Representative A) entered into a sales contract on the instant land under the condition that buyers, such as T, U, V, etc. who purchased the instant land from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “land sellers for convenience”) pay the purchase price within 30 days after the combination of the instant land and carried out the business of newly constructing and selling commercial buildings, etc. on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant development project”).

② On August 31, 2009, M entered into a lease agreement with W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 66,591,326,759, and the lease term of KRW 20 years with respect to buildings to be constructed within the instant land. Since November 4, 2009, W deposited KRW 13,327,051,763 in the account in the bank dialogue branch in the name of M., and M made a pledge with respect to the said deposit claim to guarantee the contractual performance deposit return liability due to the rescission of the lease agreement, the damage liability, etc. according to a special agreement at the time of the lease agreement.

③ A, even though the instant land was combined on March 17, 2010, failed to prepare the purchase price for the land sellers, and around April 8, 2010, transferred M’s shares 100% of the instant development project’s right to implement the instant development project (hereinafter “instant implementation right”) and management right to N. around April 8, 2010.

B around April 2010 to August 2010, N failed to raise funds related to the development project of this case. In order to transfer M/M shares and right of management, the subject of acquisition was colored, and Defendant C entered into a contract for acquisition of shares and right of management with Defendant C around August 2010 with the introduction of Defendant B, but the contract was not fulfilled because Defendant C did not prepare the price.

N around September 17, 2010 (the date of the contract is indicated as September 29, 2010) entered into a contract with R, S to transfer 100% of the shares of M and management right of KRW 5 billion between R, and S. The down payment is 50 million (R, S, each KRW 250 million, and KRW 300 million among KRW 500 million may be postponed until October 8, 2010), the intermediate payment is 3 billion (payment at the time of acquisition of the ownership), the remainder is 1.5 billion (hereinafter referred to as the "first contract"), and R was paid KRW 200 million out of the down payment to N on the day of the contract (hereinafter referred to as "the date of the construction permit completion"), and the amount is 1.0 billion out of the down payment to the Defendant under the pretext of acquisition and transfer of the shares of KRW 10 billion, and the amount is 400 million out of the down payment to the Defendant.

④ around October 1, 2010, R paid the remainder down payment of KRW 50 million to N, but S was not paying the down payment until October 8, 2010, which is the deadline for paying the down payment, and only KRW 50 million was paid around November 2, 2010, and N was notified of the cancellation of the contract to S around November 10, 201, and S paid KRW 150 million around November 23, 201 and KRW 50 million around January 24, 201, respectively.

(No. n. No. 2040, Dec. 29, 2010 on behalf of M, the No. 2010 and the No. 3100,000.

2) The Defendants and victims’ participation in the instant development project and the conclusion of an investment agreement between Defendant C and the victim

① On the other hand, Defendant C accepted M around August 2010, taking into account the following: (a) he/she intended to take over M around 2010; (b) failed to raise funds; (c) acquired M shares from N; and (d) requested Defendant B to take over 50% of M shares and management rights on his/her behalf to participate in the instant development project on the ground of Defendant B; and (c) Defendant C promised to take over 10% of the M shares free of charge; and (d) he/she may take over 50% of the M shares to be taken over under his/her own name in a situation where a dispute over whether to cancel the first contract arises between S and N; and (e) based on mutual interests, the Defendants acquired 50% of the M shares and management rights from N; and (e) again transferred them to Defendant C; and (e) Defendant C agreed to obtain necessary funds and transfer them to Defendant C10% of the shares free of charge.

② Under the above agreement, Defendant B entered into a contract with N to acquire M M M 50% and management rights in KRW 3 billion from N on January 27, 201, and the down payment amount of KRW 500 million and KRW 1.6 billion in middle [50 million in that amount is paid on or before January 31, 2011 after confirmation of the foreign exchange bank’s PF loan under the pretext of liquidation expenses (S in dispute regarding share transfer expenses) in the company (payment of KRW 1.1 billion within three business days after approval of the FF loan in the foreign exchange bank), the remainder amount of KRW 900 million shall be paid according to the sale rate of the target business, and the remainder amount of KRW 50 million shall be transferred to Defendant B at the time of the full payment of the contract (hereinafter “Article 2 contract”). Meanwhile, Defendant B entered into a contract with N 200 million and the remainder payment shall not be explained to the effect that N 500 billion in advance was well paid out by N 200.

③ From January 28, 2011, the Defendants succeeded to the status of the transferee of the shares and the management rights of Defendant C pursuant to the contract under Article 2 and entered into an agreement on the transfer and acquisition of the corporation with the content of raising funds necessary for the implementation of the contract under Article 2 (hereinafter “third contract”).

④ On January 28, 2011, Defendant C entered into an agreement on investment and profit-making of acquired funds (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”) with P around January 28, 201 to raise funds to acquire M 50% of stocks and management rights, and the main contents are as follows.

Article 1, 2 (Omission) and 3: Investment Terms and Conditions 1.2. P (Bath Omission) shall directly invest 1.0 billion won of the investment fund to C (Defendants) for the purpose of acquiring M’s share: Provided, That the investment fund shall be ........4 billion won on January 28, 201, and 600 million won after confirmation of the financial institution’s PF fund.3.4.0 billion won on January 28, 201, Article 4: (Omission) the PPP makes an investment under Article 3, and ....C pays the principal of the investment to P. .3% on condition that the principal shall not be repaid within 1.5 billion won on the basis of the following: C. The principal of the investment fund shall be transferred to P. 23% of the shares held by M. 100% of the total amount of shares held by P. 2.5 billion won on the basis of the shares acquired by P.2.5 billion won on the date of transfer.

⑤ Around January 28, 2011, the victim paid KRW 400 million to Defendant B designated by Defendant C, and Defendant B delivered KRW 400 million to N as the down payment under the second contract deposit, and N paid KRW 200 million among them to Defendant B as part of the introduction fee related to the first contract, etc.

④ Meanwhile, around January 29, 2011 to January 30, 2011, N stated to the effect that “the amount of KRW 600 million is urgently required to be paid to Defendant B” to Defendant B, and N stated to the effect that it is necessary to pay money to the land seller A and Defendant B after having set up at the SP meeting on January 201, but, after having become aware of the fact that Defendant B sought an investor, the said statement was re-written to the Defendant B on the 11st day of the 11st day of the 11st day of the 2011 (the 6th day of the 201st day of the 201st day of the 201st day of the 2011 day of the 200th day of the 2006th day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 3rd day of the 201st day of the 3rd day of the 201.

7) On February 201, 201, a civil petition related to the instant development project was filed with the Financial Supervisory Service, and M is revealed to the bad credit standing, and M was not carried out the PF loans applied to the Gangnam Branch of the Foreign Exchange Bank. As a result, M failed to pay the purchase price to the land seller, and M was no longer carried out, and M was not carried out in the order of transfer of stocks or management rights under the first contract, the second contract, the third contract, and the investment agreement.

④ Meanwhile, around March 3, 2011, the victim entered into a business agreement with M representative N in order to recover KRW 1 billion already invested, under the mutual agreement with the Defendants, N, A, and R, and agreed to pay KRW 4 billion with N in connection with the instant development project and KRW 800 million with the service cost, when Q& corporation operating the instant implementation right by the victim took over the instant implementation right with M representative N in M.

9) Since then, the victims independently executed the instant development project by entering into a sales contract with the seller of the instant land on March 3, 2011 on the ground that the seller notified the seller of the cancellation of the sales contract for M.

① The victim filed a complaint to the effect that, on November 2012, the Defendants, by deceiving himself/herself and deceiving 1 billion won, were aware of the loss of KRW 1 billion, by inserting additional funds (29 pages of the protocol of examination of the P) under the positive prospect for the instant development project.

D. Determination

1) Whether to recognize the deception by omission

A) Relevant legal principles

In the course of selling and selling real estate, the seller is obligated to notify the purchaser in advance of such circumstances in light of the principle of trust and good faith, if the purchaser fails to enter into the sales contract without notifying the purchaser of such circumstances, and if it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the purchaser would not enter into the sales contract or pay the purchase price if he/she was notified of such circumstances, he/she would not be obliged to inform the purchaser of such circumstances. Thus, the seller's failure to notify the purchaser of such circumstances constitutes a crime of deception. However, it cannot be deemed that the seller has a duty to notify the purchaser of the facts that do not interfere with the realization of the buyer's rights. Thus, in double selling of real estate, the seller cannot be deemed to have unilaterally rescinded the first sales contract, and solely on the basis that the seller could not have unilaterally rescinded the first sales contract, the seller's duty of disclosure cannot be deemed to have interfered with the buyer's performance of obligations under the sales contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the seller's deception or omission of rights under Article 289-18 (2).

B)Review

As seen earlier, R, S entered into a first contract with the content of acquiring M 100% of the shares and management rights from N on September 17, 2010; N expressed its intent to cancel the part of the first contract with S on November 10, 2010 for reasons of delay in paying down payment; and S paid the full amount of the down payment by January 24, 201; and there was a legal dispute as to whether to cancel the contract with N on January 24, 201; however, such circumstance does not appear to have resulted from the performance of the obligation to transfer shares and management rights under the second contract and the third contract between N and the Defendants; and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no legal obstacle to the performance of the obligation to transfer the principal and interest to Defendant C under the instant investment agreement and the transfer of M 23% of the shares to the Defendant C and the victim; thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no obstacle to the Defendants 10% transfer of shares to the Defendant 2 and the Defendant 10% transfer of shares to S.

2) Whether to recognize deception by commission

A) Relevant legal principles

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing such act of disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). The existence of deception or causal relation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act is required (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes others to fall into mistake, and whether there exists a causal relation between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198). Therefore, in cases where the act of the victim or the defendant causing such property disposal is closely related to the victim’s failure or performance of any business, the existence of deception or causal relation can not be determined based on the defendant’s financial ability or credit standing, etc., the victim’s experience and degree of the victim’s involvement in the business in question.

B)Review

The prosecutor's office and the statement of the victim related to deception by the defendants' commission are that the defendants had no intent and ability to return the principal amount, intention and capacity to transfer M 23% of the shares, but they had invested KRW 1 billion within three months, and KRW 500 million within six months, and KRW 23% of the shares will be returned, and KRW 23% of the shares will be transferred as stated in this part of the facts charged.

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the victim's prosecutor's office and each statement in this court to the effect that the Defendants deceptiond the intent and capacity to return principal and 23% of stocks, and the intent and capacity to transfer 23% of stocks, are difficult to believe it as is, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no

According to the entry of the investment agreement of this case, the victim invested KRW 400 million on January 28, 201, and KRW 600 million after confirming the confirmation of the PF funds by financial institutions, and Defendant C agreed to return KRW 500 million within 3 months from the date when the victim's KRW 1 billion was delivered to N, and within 6 months, the remainder of KRW 500 million within 6 months, and the victim at the prosecutor's office stated in the investment agreement of this case that "the remainder of KRW 600 million is to be paid at the same time as the PF loan is being extended (2° 73, 74 pages)." In light of the above, it is difficult to believe the victim's above statement as it is.

Rather, according to the entry of the investment agreement of this case, the victim made an investment in KRW 60 million upon the confirmation of the execution of the PF loan, and the defendant C made an investment in KRW 23% of the M shares, and the remaining KRW 500 million within 3 months after the investment in KRW 600 million. Ultimately, the defendant C promised to return the investment principal and KRW 23% of the shares to the victim on the condition of the implementation of the PF loan, and the victim made an investment contract of this case and paid KRW 400 million around January 28, 201. In other words, the defendant C and the victim could return the investment principal to the PF loan to the effect of the PF loan and transfer KRW 23% of the M shares. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendants deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

② Inasmuch as the Defendants’ investment in the instant development project, the victim’s explanation on the possibility of success in the instant development project, expected profit, etc., and the agreement on return of principal and profit, etc. is closely related to the failure or performance of the instant development project, it cannot be determined as to the existence of deception or causation based on the circumstances that the Defendants did not have any particular property or income at the time, and M actually entered into a lease agreement with W and lease deposit amount of approximately KRW 66.5 billion, and it is difficult to view that there was low possibility of success in the instant development project at the time of the victim’s investment, and that the victim’s 1.3 billion won was unlikely to have been informed of the fact that there was a high possibility of success in the instant development project from around 1, 2011 and around 31, the victim’s 200 billion won, and that there was an excessive possibility of investment in the instant development project from around 1, 2011 to 1.3 billion won, the victim appears to have been aware of the instant development project’s success in 219.

③ Meanwhile, in the case of KRW 600 million invested by the victim around January 31, 201, the victim was expected to invest KRW 600 million in accordance with the instant investment agreement (5, 7, 2, 74 pages), and the N’s request for delivery of KRW 600 million as the funds to be paid to Defendant B from January 29, 201 to January 30, 201. In light of the fact that the Defendants delivered N’ said request to the victim before the execution of the PF loan to the victim and the victim delivered KRW 600 million to N even before the execution of the PF loan became final and conclusive, it appears that the above provision of KRW 600 million was due to intervention in circumstances not included in the facts charged.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, as long as the Defendants did not notify the victim of the matters related to the first contract despite the duty to notify the victim of the fact, thereby deceiving the victim by omission, or cannot be recognized as deceiving the intent and capacity to return the invested principal, intention and capacity to transfer M 23% of the stocks and capacity as stated in this part of the facts charged, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted under

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A, from May 29, 2008 to April 8, 2010, had been working as a representative director of M who implements L new construction projects and commercial facility development projects in the project site located 11,219.8m K in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-si ( approximately 3,393m). On April 8, 2010, Defendant A continued to participate in the implementation and design of L new construction projects, etc. even after transferring the above project implementation right to the victim N around April 8, 2010.

On January 31, 2011, the defendant was entrusted with custody of KRW 600 million and kept KRW 600 million, which was paid as part of the purchase price from the victim who acquired M in the "AB" coffee shop in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

However, while the Defendant kept KRW 600 million for the victim as above, he embezzled KRW 600 million by consuming the above money for personal purposes, such as arbitrarily using it for repayment of personal debt.

(b) Summary of the case;

It is true that the Defendant received KRW 600 million from the victim on January 31, 201 and used it for the repayment of personal debt incurred in connection with the instant development project. However, the Defendant received part of KRW 5 billion in return for transfer of M/M shares and management rights to the victim, and the Defendant did not keep KRW 600 million upon the victim’s request. Thus, the Defendant did not have the status of a person who holds another’s property.

C. Determination

In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the acknowledgement of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant cannot be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006).

First of all, the prosecutor's office and each statement in this court have been kept by the defendant as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant has used it at will.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted by this court, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statements in the prosecutor's office and this court, as shown in this part of the facts charged, are true, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the victim stored KRW 600 million as stated in the facts charged, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① In relation to the case in which C filed a complaint to the effect that “the Defendant and the victim received 600 million won or more from the land sellers by falsity,” around 2011 (Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office 201, punishment No. 30685) the victim received 600 million won or more from the prosecutor’s office, “the money to be delivered to the land sellers at the time” and received 600 million won from the B, but it is also believed that there is no need to deliver it to the land sellers thereafter, and that the Defendant used the money to repay the debt that the Defendant drawn up for the implementation project.

The said money is not consistent with the statements made by the victim to the effect that the right to use the money as part of the share purchase price is "the principal and the defendant."

WC introduced the victim to the defendant at 0 billion won, and the victim himself/herself and the victim can raise 6 billion won or more at the location of the defendant's transfer of the development project. The victim stated 10 billion won or more as 5 billion won or less, 5 billion won or less as 10 billion won or less (3 pages of the examination of the witness to the defendant) and delivered the defendant with his/her seal impression in blank 80 billion won or less (85 pages). The victim did not know that 10 billion won or more was paid to the defendant for the above 10 billion won or more at the time of transfer of the development project. The victim did not know that 10 billion won or more was paid to the defendant for the above 10 billion won or more. The victim did not know that 5 billion won or more was paid to the defendant for the above 10 billion won or more, but it seems that 100 billion won or more to have been paid to the defendant's transfer of the right. The victim did not know that 60 billion won or more was paid to the defendant.

③ If the victim received M 100% of shares and the right of management from the Defendant without compensation, and there was no obligation for payment related thereto. Moreover, if the victim received KRW 600 million from B to deliver to the seller of land for the purpose of delivering it to the seller of land, and temporarily stored the same in France only for the period of coming to France, it is natural for the victim to make a demand or strong demand for return when he became aware of the fact that he arbitrarily used the KRW 600 million. However, there is no objective evidence that the victim demanded return to the Defendant at that time.

① The first time when the victim stated to the effect that “the money needs to be paid to the seller of the land” to the plenary session was around January 15, 2011 to January 20, 2011 (1:573 pages) and the time when the victim received 400 million won as the down payment under the second contract from B was around January 28, 2011. However, the victim did not intend to pay the said KRW 400 million to the seller of the land, and delivered the remainder KRW 200 million to B as the introduction expense. In light of these circumstances, it is doubtful whether the victim did not know that P is an investor of B through B (the victim was an investor of P at the time, the victim was aware that P was an investor of the degree that P would have been making an investment from P, and only was aware that P would have been making an investment) to the seller, and whether the land seller would have been paid a strong amount of KRW 600 million to the seller.

⑤ On September 17, 2010, the victim entered into a contract with R and S to transfer M shares of 100% and management rights, and received KRW 200 million from R as contract deposit on the same day, and transferred the sum of KRW 160 million following the date to the Defendant’s wife and the Defendant’s employee’s account. From October 1, 201 to January 24, 201, the victim’s transfer of KRW 236 million out of the total amount of KRW 30 million received from R and S four times during the period from October 1, 2010 to January 24, 201, to the Defendant’s wife, the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant’s employee account, and delivery of KRW 396 million out of the total amount of KRW 500 million (contract deposit) received from S to the Defendant (in this regard, the victim raised a complaint as the borrowed money, but did not think that it was the transfer proceeds at the prosecutor’s office.)

④ From January 31, 2011 to January 31, 201, one of the land sellers stated to the effect that “V paid money from the victim to the Defendant, who had been urged to pay his/her debts on or around January 31, 2011 (5-6, 14 pages of the examination record of the witness examination of V).”

7. The victim requested that the P should be paid to the P through the "Land Sellers", and the P delivered KRW 600 million to the victim with the benefit of reduction, and the defendant was well aware of this, alone, it is insufficient to reject the defendant's assertion and to recognize this part of the facts charged.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, insofar as it cannot be recognized that the victim entrusted the custody of KRW 600 million to the defendant at the time as stated in this part of the facts charged, this part of the facts charged premised on the fact that the defendant was entrusted with custody of KRW 600 million from the victim constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, thereby not guilty under the latter part of Article

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges in the order of precedence

1) The underlying facts of this part are common facts with the judgment of the following Defendant A.

2) The term "investigative records" is omitted and indicated only to ○○ CO.

3) In a case where either party to a contract has reduced the performance process by the direction of the other party to the contract and has directly provided payment to a third party who is under another contractual relationship with the other party to the contract, the payment is not only the payment to the other party to the contract, but also the payment to the third party to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46730, Dec. 26, 2003). Accordingly, in the instant case, the victim PP ? Defendant C B ? N’s net payment process was reduced to the victim P&N.

4) The Defendant’s defense counsel also instituted a public action that B and C acquired KRW 1 billion from P in this case and that the Defendant embezzled KRW 600 million, which is a part of the money obtained through the deceptive money. If the facts charged that B and C acquired KRW 1 billion from P are acknowledged, the Defendant’s defense counsel is not the owner of a part of the money acquired by B and C, and thus, the Defendant’s embezzlement is not the owner of a part of the money acquired by B and C, but the fact that the facts that the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 won is not the N, or that it is not the N, and it is not the N but M, and thus, it is true that the Defendant suffered ownership through the reduction of payment as seen above, and the victim of embezzlement is not the owner of the property entrusted with the custody of the property subject to embezzlement, and the victim of embezzlement is not a third party who is not the result of embezzlement.

In addition, the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant received KRW 600 million from N and used only to repay his/her personal debt that he/she would incur to go into the development project of this case and did not use it individually, and that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition. However, in embezzlement, an intention of unlawful acquisition refers to an intention of a person who keeps another's property to dispose of the owner's own property without authority contrary to the intention of entrustment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12155, Feb. 27, 2014). If the victim keeps KRW 600,000 as stated in the facts charged, but if the defendant uses it voluntarily for the purpose of paying his/her personal debt contrary to the purport of entrustment, it cannot be said that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.