logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.08 2015노2564
업무상배임
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although it was acknowledged that the defendant violated his duties as stated in the facts charged, and delayed re-deposit of the long-term water line reserve of this case, thereby causing damage to the residents of the apartment of this case.

2. Determination

A. On December 22, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was elected as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”). From December 24, 2012 to September 30, 2014, the Defendant was a person in charge of managing the long-term repair allowances of the instant apartment from December 24, 2012 (hereinafter “long-term repair allowances”).

The amount of the long-term deposit reserve in the instant case is KRW 1 billion and deposited in one bank and our bank, and the maturity date falls on January 10, 2013 or January 16, 2013. In the case of fixed deposits, the interest rate equivalent to 1/2 of the interest rate on general fixed deposits at the time of maturity after the maturity date. As such, the Defendant has a duty to minimize interest loss by making it possible for the damaged party to deposit the long-term deposit reserve in the instant case for the occupant of the instant apartment.

On the other hand, when a term deposit is subscribed or terminated in the name of the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case, an identification number is required, and in the case of the apartment of this case, an identification number is issued at the high tax office on January 24, 2013 due to the change of the representative meeting of the occupants.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with the above occupational duties and tried to help the deposit performance of F branch office E branch office of the new bank.

arrow