beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of all the charges of this case on the following grounds of the summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to Article 1 of the facts charged against Defendant A, Defendant A’s storage of KRW 20 million as stated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “money”) for the victim J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) and embezzlement by using his personal debt and living expenses, etc. at his own discretion. Accordingly, Defendant A’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition is recognized.
B. In relation to paragraph 2 of the instant facts charged against Defendant B, in light of the statements made by the victim E, A, and N investigation agencies, the fact that Defendant B was granted from the damaged party for L/C establishment funds by the satisfy of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) in this part of the facts charged.
However, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged under the preceding paragraph, which is the money borrowed from the injured party A.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant A, Defendant A asserted that Defendant A used approximately KRW 42,50,000 (such as overseas exit equipment, office rent, and litigation cost, etc.) from the time of establishment of the J to the end of 2013, Defendant A used the amount of KRW 30,000,000 (which KRW 20,000,000,000), which was paid by the said company E and the amount of KRW 50:50 (which was paid by the said company), for the adjustment fund or the amount of KRW 30,00,000 (which was paid by the said company), and Defendant A did not use the amount for personal debt repayment and living expenses, etc.
Accordingly, according to the evidence submitted by Defendant A (Evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4) and the witness S’s legal statement, the court below held that Defendant A is the money for the operation of J.