beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.21 2016고단6718

업무상배임

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

However, as to Defendant A, this shall not apply.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who has been engaged in the business of purchase, inspection, etc. of goods as the head of the F Management Division of the Victim F Management Division from February 16, 2009 to March 7, 2016, and Defendant B is a person who operates G as the business partner of the said victim company.

1. The Defendants committed a false sale and conspired to receive the price from the victim company to deduction the price.

Defendant

A was engaged in the business of receiving only goods to be used by the company in the above G in normal order.

Nevertheless, in collusion with Defendant B in violation of the above occupational duties, around September 8, 2011, at the victim company office located in Geumsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant B ordered false goods to Defendant B’s office. Defendant B received KRW 732,000 from the victim company as the passbook in the name of G operated by the victim company as if he did not deliver the ordered goods, and then deposited KRW 610,000 after deducting KRW 122,000,000 from the value of the above goods from the value of the goods to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of Defendant A, thereby incurring damages to the victim company by again depositing KRW 732,00,000 from the value of the goods. The Defendants took profits equivalent to the above amount.

In addition, the Defendants conspired to cause damages equivalent to KRW 101,598,000 in total to the victim company 47 times from the same method until November 12, 2015, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and the Defendants took advantage of the same amount.

2. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

A. On May 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased a conversion from “J” located in “J” in “SJ” in “Y” in “B” in U.S. on or around May 8, 2013 with the funds of the victim company; (b) in violation of the duty to purchase a conversion only when the victim company was required to do so; and (c) 60.