beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant did not sell the land in this case to the victim as agreed money and embezzled part of the proceeds from the sale of the land in this case for the victim D. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant did not intend to sell the land in this case to the victim and make an agreement.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was on December 22, 2006, the Defendant sold to the victim D land of Chuncheon City E (hereinafter “instant land”) and, upon receiving a complaint from the victim due to the suspicion of fraud, the Defendant agreed to receive a return of the said land by paying to the victim an agreed amount of KRW 150 million with the agreed amount around October 15, 2009 (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”).
The Defendant sold the instant land and decided to return the proceeds from sale to the victim as the Defendant failed to prepare the above agreed amount to be paid to the victim, and received necessary documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, from the F in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around November 10, 2010.
On November 16, 2010, the Defendant embezzled KRW 97,631,580 during the sale of the instant land to G and H at an insular place and at KRW 153,80,000, while receiving all the proceeds therefrom, and keeping them for the victim, using around that time the Defendant embezzled KRW 97,631,580 during the sale of the said land by using the secured debt repayment and the installation costs of access road to the K-si in Chuncheon City.
B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the following grounds.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim is only 90 million won from the defendant, who is the mother of the defendant around September 2006.