beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2011.07.13 2010고단1078

횡령

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, by a fine of ten million won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A is the former president of the E Union (hereinafter “instant Union”) who obtained authorization for the establishment on June 30, 2006 from the old market and received authorization for the establishment of the E Union on September 19, 2007.

Defendant

A around December 14, 2007, at the Guri-si F Office, agreed to transfer to I the right to purchase a commercial building to be newly constructed by the owner H of 1st floor 23 of Guri-si in operation of the instant building to the Association, and I received 135,496,575 won as the payment for the claim for sale against 133th floor 1st floor 23 of Guri-si in operation from B, and did not pay to the said H as the purchase price under subparagraph 23 of the said 1st floor in operation to the victim F and J for the said Fund, and embezzled B, an advisory lawyer of the instant association, as the attorney fee, around December 28, 2007. < Amended by Act No. 8778, Dec. 28, 2007>

Defendant A was the former president of the instant association, and Defendant B was the legal adviser in charge of the affairs of the instant association.

While the Defendants promoted the K redevelopment project, it is difficult to operate the partnership office due to the shortage of redevelopment project costs, etc., and the Defendants sold the right to sell a newly-built L redevelopment project, which is not qualified as a partner, to appropriate it for the operating expenses of the partnership office.

On December 27, 2007, the Defendants received 132,00,000,00 won from the victims to the agricultural bank account in Defendant B for the special sale price. The Defendants received 132,00,000 won from the victims to the Defendant agricultural bank account on the same day. The Defendants received 132,00,000 won from the victims for the special sale price.

However, the Defendants opposed to the redevelopment project.