logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.26 2014고단1932
업무상횡령등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court on February 1, 2012, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on June 14, 2012.

The defendant of "2014 Highest 1932" is the director of the accounting division of the victim D corporation located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from July 23, 2013 to January 29, 2014 and has been engaged in the above company's entry and exit management, tax payment, adjustment of books, etc.

On August 16, 2013, the Defendant, at the office of the above victim company, kept and managed the bank account (E), foreign exchange bank account (F), etc. in the name of the victim company for the said company, and used 2,00,000 won stored in the said bank account (E) to the bank account in the name of the Defendant using Internet banking, and used the said amount for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. around that time, from that time, until January 27, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 236,615,65 in total over 14 times, as shown in the attached crime list (1), for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

The defendant of "2014 Highest 3562" is a person who served as an employee in charge of I's accounting of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H from the end of June 2012 to October 2012.

1. On October 11, 2012, the Defendant concluded that “Around October 11, 2012, the victim J, who is the president of the business partner, calls to give the victim a discount of three copies of the electronic bill to the company’s order” to the victim.

However, the defendant did not have been instructed by the company to discount bills, and even if the defendant used the above money to preserve the amount embezzled by the company, he did not have the intent or ability to deliver bills normally even if he received money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is on the same day from the victim.

arrow