beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) is recognized that the defendant was delegated by the victim with the management of affairs involving the receipt and receipt of money, and thus, the defendant was in the status of keeping the insurance money of this case for the victim, and the defendant was also
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. Since embezzlement is a crime that punishs a person who keeps another's property to embezzled such property, in order to be established, the property subject to embezzlement is required to be owned by another person, and the person entrusted with administrative affairs involving the receipt of money from a third party for the delegating person, barring any special circumstance, such as the money entrusted for the delegating person, the money received from the third party for the delegating person by the act is owned by the delegating person at the same time as that of the money entrusted for the delegating person, and the delegating person shall be deemed to be in a relationship that keeps the delegating person's custody. However, whether the money received for the delegating person by delegation of administrative affairs should be determined by the nature of the legal relationship causing receipt and the intention of the party.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3627 delivered on November 10, 2005, etc.). B.
The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to deem that the intent of embezzlement was proven, and that the Defendant was in the position to keep the instant insurance proceeds owned by D, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in the position to keep the instant insurance proceeds owned by D.
C. The circumstances stated by the lower court in its judgment are as follows.