beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.03.07 2017고정1943

횡령

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the president of (State)B of the facts charged in the instant case.

On January 15, 2016, the Defendant Company (State) entered into a lease agreement with the (State) Company of the Appellant, and (State) under the lease agreement, the construction was carried out at the “E New Construction Site in a substantial area of the Cheongju City.”

On November 30, 2016, the Corporation completed and the Defendant did not return construction materials equivalent to KRW 17,095,50, a quantity of the freight to the complainant, despite having to return construction materials according to the lease agreement, and rejected the complainant’s request for due return.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled construction materials equivalent to 17,095,50 won of the complainant.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the fact that the defendant did not return construction materials worth KRW 17,095,500 as stated in the facts charged of this case to the complainant is recognized.

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the witness F’s legal statement and the list of materials entering and leaving materials, the Defendant can be found to have failed to return construction materials worth KRW 17,095,50 as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that no more construction materials are to be returned in light of the quantity, etc. of construction materials returned on May 23, 2016.

However, on May 23, 2016, only one cargo vehicle was operated at the time of the witness G’s statement on the process of issuing two copies of the transport cost tax invoice, with the knowledge that the quantity of construction materials was 11t, but only 220,000 won was issued for the first time, but later, the number of construction materials increased to 18t and 253,000 won was re-issued, and the transfer tax invoice was demand for the employee of the Defendant company to abolish the transfer tax invoice.

On the other hand, according to the entry of HJ register, etc.