beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.12.01 2016고단2132

업무상횡령

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and six months at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud, etc., and the above judgment was finalized on January 29, 2009.

On November 25, 2006, the defendant entered into a partnership contract with two victims and other parties in Gangnam-gu Seoul, where ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the victim B on November 25, 2006, and has been engaged in the management of the said friendship by concluding the partnership contract with the victim and two others.

After that, on July 18, 2008, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with G purchaser at the F Judicial scrivener Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to sell "D Co., Ltd.", which is a business property, and around August 14, 2008, transferred KRW 25 million out of the down payment from G to the head of a national bank bank (I) in the name of the Defendant’s wife H, and used it as other private and urban gas costs that the Defendant personally operated.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to J and G;

1. A partnership contract, a real estate sales contract;

1. Details of passbook transactions;

1. Before ruling: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the suspended sentence is against the other person, the fact that the former and latter concurrent crimes are concurrent crimes in the judgment, and the agreement with the victim);