beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was that the Defendant did not retain KRW 396,00,000 as stated in the judgment of the court below for the victim B (hereinafter “victim B”) and did not embezzled the said money, and did not intend to embezzlement.
The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unfluent and unfair.
Judgment
The defendant's assertion of mistake as to the facts of the defendant was also the same as the grounds for appeal. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion by taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.
Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment in comparison with the record, the Defendant sent e-mail that the Defendant requested the Defendant to deposit the said money as he/she was in need of KRW 402,480,000 due to the difference in interest rates, on December 22, 2014, when he/she had been in a position of keeping KRW 396,00,000 for the victimized company, and the Defendant sent the e-mail that he/she requested the Defendant to deposit the said money (Article 2 of the evidence record page 6). The Defendant at an investigative agency for the said e-mail, given that there was a difference in interest rates, and thus, the “expenses” amounted to the degree that
The statement was made (1st page 103 of the evidence record). “The actual use of the amount remitted to D from B to D shall be sent under the name of the CP Switzerland (Difference between the interest rate on time deposits and commercial papers)” and F’s statement (1st page 336, 337 of the evidence record) and “the name of the representative director of D company)” (1st page 438 of the evidence record, 1st page 438 of the trial record, 138 of the trial record).
The Defendant’s assertion that the money received from the victimized Company was used for the establishment of the CP SPC and could be used for that purpose (Evidence No. 1, 279 page) cannot be trusted.
The embezzlement was made.