beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) It is true that Defendant (1) misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts Defendant 1 received a contract amount of KRW 90 million from the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case and used it for personal purposes.
However, the above agreed amount of KRW 90 million is owned by the defendant immediately after the defendant receives the money from the victim, including all the expenses that the defendant is to pay to the owner of the fund by raising funds from the owner of the fund, and all the expenses that the defendant endeavored to prepare a copy of the passbook deposited with 30 billion won and a balance certificate. Thus, the defendant cannot be held in the status of a person who keeps the above 90 million won for the victim.
Furthermore, since the defendant temporarily used the above 90 million won for convenience when he deposits corporate operating funds into another passbook, it cannot be said that the defendant has the criminal intent of embezzlement.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the ownership of the money entrusted with the purpose and purpose shall be reserved until it is used for the prescribed purpose and purpose. If the trustee arbitrarily consumes the money entrusted by the truster for specific purpose without using it for its original purpose, it constitutes embezzlement. The following is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.