beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.11.29 2011고단6464

업무상횡령등

Text

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months, and a person who commits two crimes as stated in the judgment of the defendant, respectively, for ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 4, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of eight months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement by the Incheon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On April 2008, the Defendant: (a) was engaged in the sales agency business of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D Borrowing; (b) entered into an agreement with the victim E, who is the actual owner of D Borrowing 202, and was delegated to sell the lending amounting to KRW 162,00,000,000.

On July 2008, the Defendant concluded a sales contract to sell 202,00,000,000 won of the above lending from the purchaser F to the purchaser F at the office of sale in Nam-gu, Incheon. On December 2, 2008, after receiving 47,146,990 won out of the purchase and sale price from the above F, and embezzled it for business purpose by voluntarily consuming it as the office operating expenses and living expenses of the Defendant, etc. while being kept in custody for the victim.

2. On May 3, 2010, at the office of “H” located in Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, the Defendant promised to cancel the purchase contract of KRW 402,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was already established by the Defendant, if the victim paid the remainder, the Defendant promised to cancel the said contract.

However, in fact, the Defendant, without any particular property or income, was liable for a debt equivalent to one billion won. The Defendant was thought to cancel the right to collateral security as promised to receive the payment of the purchase price from the victim, not to cancel the right to collateral security, but to use the interest on loans in arrears at the time and the payment of profits to investors, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to cancel the right to collateral security as promised by the victim even if the purchase price was paid from the victim

The defendant deceivings the victim as such, and then deceivings him from the victim, namely, KRW 10 million, and May 2010.