beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact that the Defendant refused to refund KRW 7,580,000 in the aggregate of the rent of this case as stated in the facts charged, or that the Defendant had a claim for damages corresponding to the rent and a claim for the refund of the deposit for lease, and the total amount of each of the above claims is far more than the amount of the rent of this case which the Defendant refused to refund as above, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intention of embezzlement. The above act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus,
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. In a case where an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles proves the existence of each constituent element through an examination of whether the defendant constitutes an objective constituent element unless the defendant makes a confession, he/she may prove it together.
In addition, as the money received by a person entrusted with the affairs involving the receipt of money from a third party for the delegating person is equivalent to the money received for the delegating person by such act, barring any special circumstance, the delegated person shall be deemed to belong to the delegating person at the same time with the receipt of the money, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship in the custody of the delegating person. The delegated person shall also be deemed to have a relationship in the custody of the delegating person. The money received by the delegated person for the delegated person by a third party for the delegated person based on the act is not used in accordance with the purport of the delegation, as in the case of the money entrusted by the delegated person, and the money received by the delegated person for the delegated person without using it as the purport of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3681, Aug. 19, 2005). We examine the case, as alleged by the Defendant, to the victim.