beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from around 1995 to September 2006, worked as the president of the victim medical corporation D located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and took overall charge of the above foundation’s fund management.
Around April 22, 2005, the Defendant, at an E Hospital operated by the victim, leased an additional lease of 82.5 square meters of underground floor to F, the lessee, with respect to the funeral room of the above hospital, received KRW 220 million in total from F, namely, KRW 10 million from the above F, KRW 15 million from the above F, around the 25th day of the same month, around KRW 15 million from the same month, and KRW 15 million from the 29th day of the same month.
While the Defendant was in custody of KRW 220 million for the victim as a business, on April 22, 2005, around April 25, 2005, around KRW 15 million out of the above, and around April 29, 2005, around KRW 90 million out of the above E Hospital as an individual loan, the Defendant embezzled KRW 220 million in total as a result of the Defendant’s voluntary consumption for the personal purpose. Around that time, the Defendant embezzled KRW 15 million in total as a personal loan.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. At the time of the instant assertion, the Defendant received a security deposit from F, but only used it as the hospital operating expenses, and did not personally consume it. Therefore, the crime of embezzlement is not established.
B. (1) Determination is to be made by a prosecutor that there is an embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent of unlawful acquisition. The proof ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
Therefore, if the defendant does not properly explain his whereabouts or the place of use even though he had been entrusted with money, it can be inferred that the defendant voluntarily consumed and embezzled money.