beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.09.14 2015고단1865

업무상횡령등

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

(2) the date of this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, in Ansan-si, a member-gu, a member-gu, a member of the group of the group of the group of the group of companies that caused damage to the circuit board manufacturing company (hereinafter referred to as the “damage Company”), were operated by the representative director of the above company, and Defendant A was engaged in the fund execution business by entrusting the representative director of the above company, and Defendant B was engaged in the company operation and business as the actual

1. Occupational embezzlement;

A. The Defendants conspired to arbitrarily transfer money from the balance of the accounts of the victimized company that Defendant A was in his/her business custody to the bank account in the name of the private bank account to use it for private purposes.

Defendant

A, despite the fact that there was an occupational duty to fully preserve the funds of the victimized Company, a person engaged in the financing execution business, in violation of his/her occupational duty, and transferred KRW 70,00,000 from the damaged Company’s bank account (F) to the Defendant Company Bank account (G) on January 16, 2012, and voluntarily consumed the amount of KRW 380,614,874 in total five times from that time to December 14, 2012, including the transfer of KRW 70,000 from the damaged Company’s account to the Defendant Company Bank Account (G) to Defendant B’s account, and then arbitrarily consumed it from the Defendant’s apartment purchase funds.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in violation of their duties and embezzled the amount of money equivalent to KRW 380,614,874 as above.

B. Defendant A’s sole criminal act is based on the fact that there was an occupational duty to fully preserve the funds of the victimized Company, and Defendant A’s sole criminal act is under the name of Defendant from the company bank account (F) in the name of the victimized Company around September 10, 2012, in violation of the said occupational duty.