beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Grounds for appeal;
A. As to embezzlement of loans, I, H, J, and T, as well as the Defendant at the time of the contract, have been in and out of the real estate brokerage office, and the seller knew that the Defendant was not a sole purchase, the custodian status is recognized as it constitutes not a contract title trust but a third party title trust. As long as the Defendant arbitrarily uses part of the loans secured by real estate, the lower court’s judgment, which determined otherwise, is erroneous in matters of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles, even though embezzlement was established.
B. As seen earlier, the fact of embezzlement of the proceeds from the disposal of shares by J is a three-party title trust as seen earlier, and it is apparent that J's shares are disposed of to P. Thus, since the above investment money is not paid to J even though the Defendant kept the equity investment money received from P for J, the lower court's judgment that judged otherwise constitutes embezzlement is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Summary of the facts charged
A. As to embezzlement of loans (2012 high-class 292), the Defendant purchased a title trust agreement with the victim H, I, and J to the G real estate office located in the G real estate office in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si (F) with the victim H, K and L, M, N or O nine parcels of land in e.g., 3,498 square meters, with the purchase, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on March 17, 2003. On March 23, 2007, the Defendant continued to have acquired the aboveJ shares and kept them for the victim H, etc.
As above, while the defendant kept 3/4 shares of the above land for the victims, the defendant did not obtain the consent of the victims, and at around January 14, 2008, the defendant was the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the maximum debt amount shall be 77 million won and the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) with respect to the above land.