beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.30 2014고단2101

업무상횡령등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

【2014 Highest 2101】 The Defendant joined the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on December 14, 1998 and has been engaged in the business of managing customers, collecting money, etc. as the head of the Seoul Business Office of the victim company until February 17, 2014.

On October 14, 2010, the Defendant deposited 22,00,000 won from the Seoul office of the victim company located in 501, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to the national bank account in the name of the defendant, and used it for the personal purpose such as repayment of personal debt, etc. around that time while the Defendant was in the business custody for the victim company.

From that time until June 5, 2013, the Defendant embezzled KRW 334,241,940 in total through 23 times, both of the entries in the list of crimes in the attached Form, from that time, until June 5, 2013.

【2014 Highest 2428】 The Defendant served as the head of the Seoul Office of the Seoul Office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. from around February 17, 2014 to around February 17, 2014, and was engaged in the overall business of the Seoul Office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which was located in the Kimhae-si.

In doing business, the defendant has a duty not to cause property damage to the victim company by sufficiently examining the financial status and ability of the counterpart company, concluding a contract for goods supply, taking appropriate measures to recover claims, etc.

Nevertheless, in violation of the above occupational duties, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the supply of goods with G would not receive the price of goods properly, did not confirm the financial capacity of the said company on the ground of personal-friendly relationship with H affairs of the said company, and did not take any separate measures related to recovery of claims, thereby allowing the said company to place an order to the victim company for the supply of goods.

Therefore, the Defendant had the victim company do so from April 18, 2013 to February 7, 2014.