beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, who is a first-class engineer of the fixed taxi commission scheme rather than the full-scale management system, has paid 1.30,000 won per day as to the defendant, who is a first-class engineer of the first-class cargo commission scheme, is sufficient. Moreover, even though the amount of the revenue recorded in the taxi meter is excessive than the actual transportation revenue because the amount of the revenue recorded in the taxi meter is too small, the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant did not pay all the transportation revenue recorded in the taxi meter system to the damaged company. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. In the case of the fixed taxi commission scheme, if a taxi engineer obtains income above the daily taxi commission, the amount exceeding the taxi commission should be used at will by the taxi engineer, but if the daily income is less than the taxi commission, the taxi engineer is in the position of a manager in the occupational position of the taxi company for the total amount of the taxi commission, and if the taxi driver uses it at will, the crime of embezzlement is established in the course of business for the transport income that has not been paid
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2985 Decided June 12, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victimized company determined 130,000 won per day under the taxi commission in the case of the Defendant, while implementing the fixed taxi commission scheme for wage. The Defendant obtained the transport income below 130,000 won.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the victimized company implements the fixed taxi commission scheme rather than the full-scale management system, the Defendant is obligated to keep the Defendant’s daily taxi commission revenues less than the daily taxi commission as the money of the victimized company until the Defendant pays it to the victimized company, and the Defendant cannot arbitrarily use them.
Defendant’s transportation revenue.