beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2020.06.12 2020고단4

횡령

Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 27, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor and three years of suspended execution in Busan District Court on April 28, 2017.

On October 23, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim E Co., Ltd. (former change of trade name to F Co., Ltd.) and the machine learning center ( model name: KH-63G) equivalent to the market price of KRW 329,00,000 on the condition of monthly rent of 9,577,90, lease period of 36 months, lease interest rate of 6.7% per annum.

On August 3, 2015, the Defendant continued to enter into a lease agreement with the victim company on the condition that one machine learning center (VX500), the market price of which is equivalent to 70,000,000 won, and one machine learning center (F500) equivalent to 3,301,510 won, the lease period of 48 months, the lease interest rate of 5% per annum.

The Defendant, upon entering into a lease agreement as above, kept three machine learning centers for the victim company, at around October 29, 2015, received KRW 150,000 from the above C Office to sell it at his/her own discretion.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement related to G and H;

1. A facility lease contract and related documents;

1. Previous convictions: Court rulings, summary orders and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing (the Busan District Court Decision 2016No4968, Busan District Court Decision 2016No4968, Busan District Court Decision 2016Da75777), the Defendant repeatedly committed embezzlement, and the fact that the amount of damage exceeds KRW 400 million, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant.