beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2012.09.07 2011고합139

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for six months, respectively.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on May 6, 2010, at the Goyang Branch of the District Court, imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of occupational embezzlement was sentenced to one year and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment was finalized on January 11, 201.

[2011 Gohap139] The Defendants held office as a joint representative director of H in the case of the victims of G from January 7, 2008 to March 31, 2010 and took charge of the duties of attracting and managing the funds of the victims.

1. Defendant A

A. A. Around April 30, 2008, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) was in custody of the victim's operational funds in the victim's office located in G in the course of business while withdrawing KRW 7,700,000 out of the above operational funds from around that time, and arbitrarily used them in the repayment of the Defendant's debt from March 4, 2008.

7. Until August 7, 200, a total amount of KRW 637,980,000 was used in eight times as shown in the annexed list of crimes and embezzled.

B. On September 9, 2008, the Defendant in breach of occupational duty, even though he did not use the victim’s corporate card that he had been in charge of the business for the purpose unrelated to the company’s operation, in violation of this duty, paid the victim’s corporate card purchase price of KRW 1,00,000 with the victim’s corporate card in violation of this duty, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. Defendant B, around May 18, 2009, at the victim’s office located G at the time of strike, the sales price of KRW 192,00,000 is KRW 192,00 in the indictment of one bank under the name of the Defendant, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the one bank account.

While being transferred to the account and kept in custody for the victim, 27,000,000 of the above money was embezzled by using it at will from around that time to November of the same year.

[2011Gohap140] Defendant A.