beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, not C’s employee, entered into a service contract with the seller agency, and was delegated by the O J of directors to distribute the award money. Since the distribution of the award money is the Defendant’s business, the Defendant has ownership.
Even if the defendant's act constitutes embezzlement, the defendant distributed a prize to a contracting officer who actually caused the sales contract, and the victim was 5.4 million won of the money to be paid to them, it is deemed that the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement or did not violate social rules.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. As to the money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person based on his/her act, barring any special circumstance, the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship with the delegating person’s possession at the same time with the delegated person’s receipt, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship with the delegated person’s custody of the money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person based on the delegated person’s act. The delegated person agreed to offset and settle the amount of money received from the third party on behalf of the delegating person, as in the case of money entrusted.
In the absence of the declaration of set-off or the declaration of intention of set-off, the set-off appropriation for the defendant's claims against the delegating person without using it in accordance with the purport of the delegation is against the original intent of the delegation and constitutes embezzlement.
(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8939 Decided February 22, 2007). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant received and kept the prize money from E on behalf of the victim B on behalf of the victim B on duty.