beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.11 2014노3053

배임등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

On August 25, 2012, after withdrawal from the business relationship with Defendant A, Defendant A believed that “The instant machinery machinery machinery will be sold to K for KRW 250 million and its sales proceeds will be used to repay obligations to the Small and Medium Business Corporation, a mortgagee,” and affixed a seal on the relevant documents. Defendant A used the sale proceeds of KRW 250 million in the repayment of personal obligations. Therefore, Defendant A did not have an intention of breach of trust.

The respective sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment) against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants’ unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

The lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the assertion of mistake of facts in G stated the following circumstances: (i) Defendant A stated in the investigative agency and this court that “at the time of selling the instant machinery machinery, it did not have obtained the consent of the Small and Medium Business Corporation, which is a collateral security right, or that it would have been used to pay the sales price to the Small and Medium Business Corporation,” and (ii) contrary to the Defendant G’s assertion, K entered into a written contract at the investigative agency on August 25, 2012 with the Defendants at the place where all the Defendants are located. The Defendants did not hear from the Defendants that “the right to collateral security was established in the name of the Small and Medium Business Corporation, or the contract was concluded with the Small and Medium Business Corporation.” (iii) Defendant G did not hear the purport that “where the instant machinery was sold to Defendant A without consultation with the Small and Medium Business Corporation, it constitutes a criminal case.” (iii) Defendant G did not have obtained permission from the investigative agency to sell the machinery of this case.