beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.02 2015노39

업무상횡령

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 8,000,000 won.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that: (a) misunderstanding of facts in fact, G is an individual business entity of the Defendants; (b) the amount of benefits that the Defendants did not receive from G is equivalent to KRW 15,500,000; (c) during that period, 131,357,400 was disbursed as short-term loans for the operation of G (State); and (d) the Defendants paid rent of KRW 6,60,000,00, etc., even though the Defendants used KRW 103,383,480 for purposes other than those for G (State), the Defendants cannot be recognized as the intent of unlawful acquisition; and (b) the lower court determined that the Defendants constituted the crime of occupational embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The Defendants asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Defendant A is a director of the victim G (state) located in the Republic of Korea from around July 30, 2010 to the Republic of Korea, who was engaged in the business and expenditure affairs of the said company, and Defendant B is a representative director in the name of the said company. Defendant B is a person in charge of accounting as a representative director in the name of the said company.

The Defendants embezzled KRW 5 million from August 30, 201 to December 31, 2012 by arbitrarily consuming the total amount of KRW 103,383,480 owned by the victim from August 30, 201 to December 31, 2012, including embezzlement of KRW 5 million by Defendant B’s arbitrary withdrawal of KRW 5 million for personal purposes without a resolution of the board of directors on January 24, 201 and then using it for personal purposes.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with each other.