beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The name is omitted in the part of the Defendants’ assertion and judgment as to each of the Defendants, and the name is specified as “Defendant”.
1) Defendant A purchased the said land without being delegated with the duties of development and sale of the land located in P (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of the official land entry in the facts charged by the injured party, Defendant A purchased the said land.
Therefore, there is no consignment relationship between the defendant and the victim who received money as stated in the facts charged from B, and the defendant does not keep the said money for the victim.
Even if there exists a consignment relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant had to sell the instant land to B and recover expenses incurred in authorization and permission and construction during the process of the commission of the victim, and he was aware that the Defendant was aware that part of the instant land was sold to P and received KRW 130 million as the down payment and received KRW 100 million as the down payment, and was used to receive the said money from B for the purpose of recovering the expenses incurred as above. As such, the Defendant had a criminal intent of embezzlement merely because it was used to receive the said money from B for the purpose of recovering the expenses incurred therefrom.
shall not be effective.
B) Regarding Defendant B 1’s embezzlement, as seen earlier, the Defendant was the purchaser of the instant land, and thus, the Defendant did not keep the money recorded in the facts charged for the victim.
In particular, No. 2-
A. 3) With respect to the facts charged in the indictment, the victim himself stated in the investigative agency that “the money paid to R for the reduction or exemption of transfer taxes must be excluded from the embezzlement,” and the Defendant actually paid 30 million won to R for the reduction or exemption of transfer taxes. At least 36.2 million won out of the embezzlement amount of this part of the facts charged should be excluded from the embezzlement amount.
(2) An occupation of fraud.