207 Highest 5780 Embezzlement

○ ○

nan

Law Firm

April 25, 2008

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

The Defendant was obligated to pay 436,069,000 won to the victim Park ○○.

On September 13, 2006, the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost of KRW 100,000,000, out of the Defendant’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant’s Haak-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, and the Defendant’s claim for construction cost of KRW 100,00,00 among the claim for construction cost to be incurred from pipes construction.

However, even though ○○○ through ○○○ through the above construction cost, around October 206, 2006, around 29,700,000, around November 3, 11 of the same year, KRW 500,000, around June 6 of the same year, KRW 46,200,000 around December 11 of the same year, and KRW 7,000,000 around January 10 of the same year, and KRW 3,450,00 around January 10, 207; KRW 2,00,000; KRW 53,50,000 around January 17 of the same year; and KRW 0,00 around 0,00 among the construction cost; and KRW 30,000; and KRW 40,000 around 0,000; and KRW 130,405,000 around March 30 of the same year.

2. Determination

As to the facts charged of this case, since the defendant completed the notification after the assignment of the assignment, even if the defendant received the claim transferred from the debtor as a repayment title, it cannot be viewed as a custodian for the assignee of the claim as to the said money, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant transferred 10 million won out of the Defendant’s claim for construction price to ○○○○ as stated in the facts charged, and notified ○○○, a debtor, of the above fact on the same day.

If the defendant completed the notification of the assignment of claims, even if the defendant received the money from the debtor after the notification, the repayment made by the debtor cannot be a valid repayment, and the assignee of the claim still holds a claim against the debtor. If so, the above money collected by the defendant cannot be deemed to belong to the assignee's ownership, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is in the custody of the victim, and there is no other status that the defendant is in the custody of the above money for the victim.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges