beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노2088

배임수재

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

20,490,00 won shall be collected from the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles that a defendant received membership rights in a golf course to solve civil petitions as a site warden, but the defendant is not a business administrator because he/she has no right to bid and increase the construction cost, and there is no illegal solicitation such as the statement in the facts charged.

(b) Sentencing (the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and additional collection of 2490,000 won);

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport, and the lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that (i) in light of the content of the duties that the Defendant was in charge of the field warden, the Defendant, as an auxiliary agency, managed the affairs relating to bid or the selection of a subcontractor, etc., which constitutes a fiduciary relationship, which constitutes the elements for establishing the crime of taking property in breach of trust; and (ii) according to the statement of the relevant persons, K made an illegal solicitation, such as allowing the Defendant to benefit from the increase of construction cost through design change, etc., as stated in the facts charged, and, thus, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is rejected.

3. We examine the determination on the unfair argument of sentencing. The defendant's personal use and disposal after completion of the construction work with large golf membership in its name, and actually acquired the price by receiving illegal solicitation, and the profits such as the increase in the construction cost and the additional construction contract, etc. from the sub-subcontracts.