logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.07.22 2016고단12
횡령
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, who leased from the Korea Asset Management Corporation, was to receive a joint auction on the condition that the Defendant will bear 50% of the bid bond, respectively, with the victim D regarding the instant site.

On June 2, 2015, the Defendant received a successful bid of KRW 83,160,00 for the instant site from the victim, and received KRW 41,580,000 for the same day from the victim, and delivered KRW 4,158,00 for the value-added tax around June 4, 2015, respectively.

However, as the Defendant did not pay the bid price for the instant site by June 9, 2015, which was the due date for the payment of the bid price for the instant site, the successful bid has become null and void.

Accordingly, since the joint auction bid with the victim was nonexistent, the defendant has embezzled the total of 45,738,000 won that he had received from the victim and returned to the victim, but has not returned it to the victim and has consumed it for personal use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Legal statements made by witnesses D;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. A copy of each passbook (Evidence 2, 9, 10, 11), joint bid application, power of attorney, notice of invalidity of award, text message (Evidence List 6), application of legislation as a result of tender

1. In the instant case where the Defendant initially made a joint bid on the issues of Article 355(1) of the pertinent Act and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment for the instant case, but the other party changed from E to the damaged party, and the Defendant did not return KRW 45,738,00 to the injured party even though the joint bid had not been made, the facts charged are found guilty for the following reasons.

① On April 22, 2015, as alleged by the Defendant, there is no clear basis for the Defendant to assume the full amount of KRW 10,221,310, the bid bond of KRW 102,21,310, the bid bond of KRW 102,21,10 when the Defendant independently receives the successful tender.

Rather, Defendant U.S.

arrow