beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the embezzlement, the defendant is obligated to pay capital reduction funds received from the LA and the plaintiff, including victims, and if the capital reduction funds in custody are consumed for other purposes, embezzlement is established for the victims who have not received the capital reduction funds, and the defendant is also recognized as an intentional act of embezzlement by receiving the capital reduction funds in addition to the capital reduction fund as an intermediate merchant of agricultural products and paying other agricultural products with the capital reduction funds received from LA and the capital reduction funds. In light of the above, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. In light of the fact that the victim K entered into a capital reduction sales contract with the defendant on the condition that it will immediately receive the price by supplying the agricultural products to the agricultural products produced in capital reduction, and the defendant stated that there is no reason to deliver the capital reduction at a price lower than the market price unless such a condition is attached thereto, the defendant would have the above victim deliver the capital reduction to the agricultural products.
In other words, the judgment of the court below that judged otherwise is erroneous in the misconception of facts, since it can be recognized that the above victim acquired capital from the above victim, and that there was an intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination on embezzlement 1) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, there is considerable doubt as to whether the defendant used part of the capital reduction amount received from I for the personal purpose, but in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that this part of the facts charged was proven without reasonable doubt.
It is insufficient to view it, and otherwise, evidence to recognize it.