beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.30 2018고정718

업무상횡령

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A worked as the head of the division of the sales business division and the head of the division of the victim (state) who operates the real estate consulting and the new loan brokerage business, and the defendant B agreed to receive fees from the company at a certain rate after paying them to the company in the name of the victim company.

Nevertheless, around June 22, 2017, the Defendants conspired to enter into a sale contract with respect to the F building distributed by the head of E, an employee of the victimized company in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, under the name of the victimized company, and embezzled the amount of KRW 9,670,000 in total from the head of the team team of the F building sales office to the account in the name of the Defendant B for the purpose of the victimized company, while he/she was in the custody for the victimized company, he/she arbitrarily divided the amount of KRW 4,835,00,000 and embezzled

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 12, 16, 17, 18, 20) revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court. In other words, the contract of this case was executed by the Defendants after being transferred to E, an employee of the victimized Company; ② the spouse of the contracting party of this case was ordered by Defendant B at the time of the contract execution; ③ the victimized Company paid KRW 967,000,000, which is KRW 10% of the sales commission of the contract of this case to E; ④ other employees of the victimized Company paid the sales commission to E; ④ other employees of the victimized Company provided explanation that the sales commission of this case was divided to five:5; ⑤ Defendants did not know the real estate agent’s name in the victimized Company’s office; ⑤ Defendants used the sales commission on the day of receiving the sales commission, and the facts charged of this case and the facts charged.