2012 Highest 3912 Embezzlement

A

Plux (prosecutions) and tents (public trial)

Attorney B

November 22, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal History Office

On October 23, 2009, the Defendant received a request from the said victim to the effect that, at the D Legal Office located in Suwon-gu, Daegu, the Defendant was detained for special larceny suspicion (F, the father of the victim E, was arrested on October 7, 2009 for special larceny suspicion and was detained for investigation on October 9, 2009, and was detained for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) with the Daegu District Court Support on November 3, 2009) and KRW 200 million prepared to be used as deposit money, going in company with G, who is the above F’s defense counsel, and requested the above victim to the effect that “the above F, the father of the victim E, who is the father of the victim, was arrested on the charge of special larceny suspicion and was detained on October 7, 2009.”

Thus, the Defendant received the above KRW 200 million from the above G over several occasions on November 2009, and used the remaining money in the name of KRW 150 million under the pretext of the agreement, deposit money, expenses necessary for the agreement, etc. of the above F’s criminal case, and used it for the said victim. On December 30, 2009, the Defendant embezzled the remaining money by using the Defendant’s wife as daily living expenses, etc. from the time to April 201, 2010, in the manner of giving KRW 5 million to H, who is the Defendant’s wife, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, from that time, to April 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, I, and H;

1. Protocol concerning the police and examination of suspects of G;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. Each police statement made to E, F, I, and H;

1. Certification of agreement amount;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of Sentencing as follows)

The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion and the reasons for sentencing. The defendant and his defense counsel received KRW 200 million from the victim E and used KRW 49.8 million among them as the defendant's living expenses, the defendant's debt repayment in the name of the defendant, etc. However, the 200 million won includes both the agreement amount to be paid to the victims of the larceny incident against F, the father and the former wife of the victim E, and the expenses to be incurred and the expenses to be incurred. Since the defendant agreed with the victims as the above KRW 200 million was released, the defendant used the money remaining after the agreement, which does not need to be returned, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

I asserts that it is called.

However, according to the above evidence, H present at this court as a witness of the defendant can fully recognize the facts charged in this case. In particular, it is difficult to accept the above argument of the defendant and the defense counsel in light of the following: "When the victim E asks that it would be 200 million won or more, it would not have determined how to reach an agreement because of urgent circumstances at the time of the victim E's request that it be able to reach an agreement." In the event of delegation of affairs between relatives and relatives, etc. as in this case, it is ordinary in light of the empirical rule to not receive compensation such as fee, etc. unless there is any special agreement. Furthermore, the amount of embezzlement of this case 498 million won was used for the personal purpose of the defendant who is not related to the criminal agreement, and it is too large to regard it as a fee for about four months which may result in the agreement of the defendant

As above, although the Defendant did not seem to have any attitude of denying and opposing the crime even though the charges of this case were found guilty, it is not good that the Defendant made considerable efforts in the process of agreement with the victims of the larceny case at KRW 200 million, as well as in the process of agreement with the victims of the larceny case, the above F is to be released as a result of sexual death, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances leading the Defendant to commit the crime of this case, etc., as set forth in the Disposition above.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The number of judges