beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquitted portion of each of the Defendants (the embezzlement of joint business among the facts charged against Defendant A, the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement of the amount in attached Table 3 of the lower judgment, and the charge against Defendant B) by depositing the original students’ basic living cost, etc. into the agricultural cooperative account in one’s name, thereby realizing an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and, if the Defendant used the amount exceeding the amount that is individually usable for any purpose other than its original purpose, the crime of embezzlement is established against the total amount of the used amount. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of embezzlement, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of embezzlement, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unhued and unfair.
2. The facts charged in the instant case (the part of innocence against the Defendants disputing the Prosecutor)
A. The Defendants conspired to use part of the purchase price of 101 O apartment 101 309 dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu
Defendant
A around November 2008, the principal of the Agricultural Cooperative Account (P; hereinafter referred to as the “Agricultural Cooperative Account”) in his name and the seal affixed to the Defendant B, which was deposited into the account in the name of F originals, withdrawn and deposited with the payment of basic living expenses, and the allowance for disabled persons, and Defendant B voluntarily used it as apartment price on the same day after withdrawing KRW 97,00,000 from the said account from the said account at the place of Sadong-dong-dong, Sadong-dong, Sadong-dong, Sadong-dong, A around November 11, 2008.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to the victims.