beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.18 2018고단711

업무상횡령

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) established for the purpose of manufacturing and constructing steel structures, painting, surface disposal, etc.

On April 2006, from around January 201 to around January 2015, the Defendant was an auditor of the victim company and filed an administrative suit against the victim company to cancel the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax on the victim company upon delegation from the victim company on December 2007, and then dealt with the affairs related thereto.

However, the Defendant stated in the facts charged on February 9, 2009 as of February 9, 2009, but deposited KRW 23,224,740 in the agricultural bank account of this case was made on July 3, 2009 (the 850th page of the investigation record), and it appears to have been erroneous.

In the office of the victim company located in F in Gyeongsung-si, the mediation of the result of the above administrative litigation was concluded and the defendant was transferred 23,224,740 won to the victim company's agricultural bank account (G) (hereinafter "agricultural bank account of this case") under the name of the victim company (hereinafter "agricultural bank account of this case") under the name of the victim company (hereinafter "agricultural bank account of this case"), and the amount was arbitrarily used for the defendant's personal purpose around that time while keeping it for the victim company.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled 23,224,740 won owned by the victim company in the course of business.

2. Determination

A. The representative director, who has a personal claim against the company, uses his/her own claim in cash, which he/she holds on behalf of the company, for the repayment of his/her own claim does not constitute an act of self-transaction that conflicts with the interests of the company and its directors, and even if the representative director pays his/her claim against the company without the approval of the board of directors, it is valid as an act of performance of the company's obligation within the representative director's authority and thus,