beta
Text
The judgment below
The part on Defendant B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Determination ex officio as to Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant B, as the head of the O P branch, is a person in charge of overall affairs and management affairs of the above branch, and in order to issue a written payment guarantee for goods, the head of the O shall investigate the credit rating of the applicant who wants to be issued a written guarantee and enter it in the computer, and obtain approval from the head of the O headquarters after obtaining approval from the head of the branch office, but at around 14:30 on October 20, 201, the head of the O P branch in violation of the above occupational duties and prepare a written payment guarantee for goods amounting to KRW 1 billion in the name of the head of the O P branch office, thereby gaining property interest of KRW 1 billion in the amount equivalent to the security deposit and causing damage equivalent to the amount equivalent to the COO.”
B. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that Defendant B incurred property damage equivalent to KRW 1 billion in the amount of KRW 1 billion in the corporation C by issuing a payment guarantee letter that Defendant B received from Co-Defendant B to T, and convicted this part of the facts charged, and found Defendant B acquired property profit equivalent to KRW 1 billion in the amount of KRW 1 billion in the course of Defendant B’s breach of trust, which is based on the premise that Defendant B acquired property profit.
C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination that recognized Defendant B’s payment guarantee to T as stated in this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.