beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) received total sum of KRW 81 million from the victim with respect to D forest land 2,195 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) and E forest land 2,314 square meters (hereinafter “E land”); and (c) paid KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 won in addition to profits; (d) however, there is no difference between the Defendant and the victim’s share transfer to 1
Since the Defendant is not in the position of custodian for one-half portion of the above land, the Defendant used the disposal price in entirety.
Even if it is not embezzlement, it is not embezzlement.
The custodian was in the position of
Even before disposing of E's land on July 21, 201, it was settled that the victim and the defendant paid KRW 90 million between the victim and the defendant on July 21, 2011, which is before disposing of E's land, at least, embezzlement is not established against the disposal price of E's land disposed thereafter.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. The following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement to the police investigation to the court below that the purchase price of the above land was approximately KRW 180 million, and the defendant made an investment of KRW 90 million in the amount of KRW 1/2 of the purchase price by deeming the victim to have invested KRW 1/2 of the purchase price in the amount of KRW 90 million. The defendant also made a statement to the effect that on March 26, 2013, when the prosecutor conducted a large-scale investigation with the victim, the market price of the above land was KRW 180,000,000,000 as at the time when the victim received KRW 90,000 from the victim, and later received KRW 1/2 of the investment from the victim to the court below, and later paid the investment amount and profits by selling it later to the victim. ② The defendant made a statement to the effect that the right to claim ownership transfer was registered only on July 15, 2017.