The case finding the defendant not guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement on the ground that partners were not in the position of keeping the amount of money of the partners after withdrawal from the partnership.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the crime of occupational embezzlement on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had been in custody of money for the complainant, on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant had been in custody of money for the complainant, since the complainant, etc., who decided to manage the newspaper company together with the defendant left the same business relationship in order due to business difficulties and became managed independently by the defendant, and the defendant was not in the position of a person who holds the money for the complainant, and the defendant merely paid the money for the return of his investment money in relation to the complainant.

Article 356 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jae-soo

Seoul District Court Decision 95No1557 delivered on November 23, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was in the custody of money for Kim Jong, a complainant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant was in custody of money for the purpose of the defendant's sole management, since he left from the same business relationship in order due to business difficulties, the defendant was not in the position of a person who has kept the money for Kim Jong, a complainant, and the defendant was not in the position of a civil debtor who merely pays the money for the return of his investment money. Therefore, in relation to the above Kim Jong, there is no evidence to prove that the facts charged in this case is in the position of a custodian, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant was in custody of money for the defendant Kim Jong, a complainant, and the related evidence examined by the records, it is proper to find the above facts-finding and decision of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)