beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that when the defendant retires "D", he/she could not return the He/she can not be forgotten, and that he/she did not refuse to return it with the intention of unlawful acquisition. Thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the employee of the “D” company ought to return the uniforms, etc. at the time of retirement was known, and the Defendant India is provided with the uniforms on October 18, 2013, which is after entering the Defendant India company, and the responsibility for the management of the uniforms is against A.
It can be acknowledged that the Defendant, after the lapse of several months from the date of withdrawal (Evidence No. 21, 2013) to the “Written Consent for the Payment of the Henp” (Evidence No. 21, 2013, Oct. 24, 2013) including the content that the he/she must return the Henp from the unclaimed return, and that he/she returned the he/shenp, etc. to the Henp on March 28, 2014, which was after the investigation was commenced upon the complaint of the company at the time of withdrawal.
In light of the above facts, the defendant had an intention not to return the cargo pumps, etc. around October 24, 2013, which was at the time of the retirement of the defendant.
As such, the defendant only stated that he would work in the above company E's text message, etc. sent to the defendant, and there was no opinion that he would return the oil pumps, etc., and therefore there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.
However, according to the above "Written Consent for the Payment of Oils", the defendant, who did not work at the above company after October 24, 2013, has a duty to return oil pumps, etc. to the above company.
Therefore, the circumstance that there was no stipulation that the text message sent by E should be returned separately, is irrelevant to determining whether the Defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition at the time of retirement of the above company).