beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was from July 1, 2010 to two years, the Defendant leased Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Borrowing 201 as the lease from the victim D, and paid KRW 200,000,000 to the victim.
The Defendant transferred the above security deposit repayment claim to the new Lone Savings Bank, a stock company that borrowed KRW 140,000,000, and implemented the transfer notification procedure to the victim.
The Defendant terminated the lease contract on January 1, 2012, which was before the expiration of the lease period, and received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim as the name of return of lease deposit, around January 13, 2012, and KRW 179,485,470 around January 21, 2013.
The Defendant, who received the above security deposit from the Defendant and kept 140,000,000 won among them for the victim, embezzled the property of the victim by using it at will to pay the personal debt of the Defendant at around that time.
2. The judgment of embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another’s property contrary to the fiduciary relationship, embezzling or refusing to return it. Thus, in order to recognize that the Defendant, a lessee, embezzled the leased money returned from the lessor D, there should be a fiduciary relationship, i.e., entrustment of the transferred part of the leased money returned between the Defendant and D.
According to the records, the defendant transferred KRW 140 million among the claim for the return of security deposit against D to the New Savings Bank, which was transferred to the new Savings Bank, and received the full amount of the security deposit from D. Thus, the defendant bears the obligation to make a double payment to the above Savings Bank which received part of the claim for the return of security deposit deposit, and as such, the defendant bears the obligation to return part of the security deposit returned to D as unjust enrichment or damages, it cannot be said that the trust relationship, which is the entrustment, is established as to the transferred part of the security deposit returned between the defendant and D.
3. Conclusion.