beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The lower court recognized the Defendant’s embezzlement on the ground that, by omitting the determination on whether this part of the materials was made by false storage, U transferred money under the name of the rent granted by T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) to Defendant A and his/her branch, Defendant A and his/her subsidiaries.
Accordingly, there is evidence of normal storage, such as the lease lease slip and computer input details, transport cost details, and cost log.
2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the part 1-B of the facts charged in U-related U.B. 1-B. The 1-5th and 5th of the net delivery of the annexed crime No. 2 of the crime No. 1-B (hereinafter “Attachment No. 2”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below was first borrowed from U.S.
As recognized before August 27, 1999, each of the above loans repayment slips was determined to be false.
However, since U and AI testified that each of the above transactions was normal transactions in the court below's trial, the court below erred by erroneous determination on this part.
B) The lower court determined that Defendant A embezzled each of the materials taken out, on the grounds that the details of the shipment of each of the materials was not included in T’s electronic computer, regarding No. 1-b. Attached 2-3 to 6-12 of the facts constituting the crime in its holding.
However, there may be no possibility that computer input would be omitted by simple negligence of T employee.
3) Criminal facts No. 1-C. as indicated in the lower judgment related to U.C.
The lower court determined that Defendant A embezzled on the ground that the details of the release of materials listed in the aforementioned prior to each lease was not included in T’s computer.
However, there may be no possibility that computer input would be omitted by simple negligence of T employee.
In addition, the court below has received the payment of rent for each of the above materials from T to U.S.