beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the occupational embezzlement) found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, but the Defendant and the Victim Company were in the position of keeping the travel expenses deposited in the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant for the sake of the victim company, since the Defendant and the Victim were in an independent relationship with the Defendant to perform the passenger service in Japan and distribute the proceeds according to the agreement by using the Defendant’s personal trading line. As such, the Defendant and the Victim Company was in
It can not be seen that there was a criminal intent to illegally obtain the defendant who refused to return travel expenses as a right of offset when settlement of accounts is not completed.
The defendant's act of refusing to return travel expenses can not be seen as a justifiable act, and the illegality is excluded.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the fraud) found the Defendant not guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, but the victim company merely lent money to the Defendant under the pretext of paying the outstanding amount to the former transaction partner, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant would have lent money to the Defendant if he notified the Defendant to use the borrowed money as living expenses, etc., and thus, it constitutes a crime of fraud.
(2) The above sentence, which the court below committed against the defendant, is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) whether the Defendant is admitted to the custodian’s status and the intent of unlawful acquisition.