beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant disposed of the office No. 801 of the Haak-gu Office of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “the office of this case”) owned by C and the office No. 312-dong 301 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) of the YY-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-si, and the office No. 312-dong 301 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), by violating the obligation to settle the amount of investment pursuant to the agreement with the victim, and thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 26,393,000,000 out of the total value of 420 million
However, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The circumstances of the lower court’s determination, in particular, under an agreement between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant and the victim acquired the instant apartment and the instant office in a lump sum by acquiring the instant apartment and the instant office, so there is no reason for the Defendant to separately settle and divide the price for disposal of the instant apartment and the instant office, and the e-mail sent by the Defendant around April 21, 2014, the victim appears to have been aware of the circumstances at the time of the purchase price of the instant apartment and the instant apartment were put into the Defendant Company C, which was taken over by the Defendant to E, and the victim did not have any specific consultation with the Defendant as to how to divide the instant apartment and the instant office into the instant apartment and the instant office.
In full view of the facts stated in the statement (50,54 pages of the trial record), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had the duty to settle the investment funds to the victim when disposing of the apartment house and office of this case.
It is insufficient to conclude it.
The judgment of the court below is justified.