beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the sales contract, receipts, and copies of checks, which are legitimate evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, and the third police interrogation protocol against the defendant, it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant was acquitted.
2. Determination
A. From February 2003, the Defendant: (a) from around February 2003, paid the rent of KRW 8 million per month for EM owned by the victims of Gwangju Seo-gu; and (b) from July 20, 2009, the Defendant agreed to keep and manage corporeal movables, such as television, cooling, etc., in operating the said telecom, by operating the said telecom until July 20, 2009.
However, at around May 28, 2009, when the Maurel at the Gwangju District Court ruled F due to the debt of the victim D, it prepared a sales contract to dispose of the goods equivalent to KRW 5,490,000,00,000, including television, cooling, etc. kept in the telecom, as if it were one of its own possession, and embezzled by using the money at will.
B. The lower court determined that the F’s statement to the purport consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was made in the position of the criminal suspect for embezzlement of movable property, and that F was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff became the lessee after the her mother was newly constructed around 1999 and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of D, but it is difficult to believe that it was based on the premise that the Defendant believed that he was the owner of the movable property within the her mother line without confirming whether the ownership of the movable property in the instant case was D, and that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds that there was no other evidence supporting the facts charged.
C. The evidence presented by the Prosecutor of this Court alone cannot be deemed as proven without reasonable doubt, and otherwise, the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed as having been proven.