beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 22, 2018, the Defendant transferred the above notification personnel to the victim E while operating the D notification personnel in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si.
On March 1, 2018, the Defendant received money of KRW 3.80,00 from the F residing in the F, who was transferred to the account (H) in the name of G in the name of the Defendant’s father, from the F, under the pretext of the public notification source. On March 24, 2018, the Defendant embezzled KRW 7.60,000,000,000 from the I residing in the said public notification source to the said bank account under the pretext of the public notification source, and received a demand from the injured party for return on several occasions at that time, but did not comply with such demand without any justifiable reason, and embezzled the total amount of KRW
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not know the remittance of error, and the victim expressed his intent to immediately return the amount of money wrongfully remitted to the defendant with a mistake, on the grounds that the defendant had a genuine intent to immediately return the money, as he did not know that there was an intention to make an intentional or unlawful acquisition with respect to the transfer and acquisition of the instant public notice board and the inevitable speech and behavior related to the instant case.
According to the above evidence, according to the above evidence, the defendant was found to have made a statement that he would return money to the victim, and the victim made an inevitable speech in relation to the process of the sale of the Institute of Public Notice and the remittance of the mistake in this case.
Even if there is no justifiable reason for refusal of return solely on the fact that he or she is subject to an apology, it is nothing more than that that the defendant refuses to return the money erroneously remitted to the victim during the trading process of the public notice board of this case.
Therefore, the above argument shall not be accepted.
1. Criminal facts;