beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding is that the Defendant merely appropriated the price of delivered food materials received from the customer of the victim for the repayment of the Defendant’s loans to the victim, and thus no actual loss incurred to the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s instant act does not constitute embezzlement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The money received from a third party on behalf of a delegating person based on his/her act is the same as the money that was received by the delegating person for the purpose or purpose, barring any special circumstance, and the delegated person is in a relationship between the delegating person’s possession and the delegated person’s custody for the delegating person, barring any special circumstance.
It should be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 96Do3155 delivered on March 28, 1997), and as in the case of money entrusted by a person entrusted with administrative affairs involving receipt and receipt of money from a third party on behalf of the mandator, it is not used in accordance with the purpose of the delegation, and as in the case of money entrusted by the third party on behalf of the mandator, it is not used in accordance with the purport of the delegation, and it is against the original delegation purpose and constitutes embezzlement unless there is any special agreement that the offset against the defendant's claims against the delegating person is settled (Supreme Court Decision 97Do1520 delivered on September 26, 1997). In this case, at the time of the deposit of food materials into the defendant's account, the defendant was retired, but the name of the contract for the supply of food materials with the customer was deposited as the defendant, and therefore, the defendant also understood such circumstances.