(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.11.25 2014노678

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.11.25 2014노678

횡령등

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (1) The Defendant, at the request of F and D, committed the construction of a new commercial building in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-ground Commercial Building (hereinafter “new building in this case”), and at the request of F and D, did not intend to eliminate the difference between the construction cost and the actual construction cost. The Defendant obtained comprehensive power from F and D to prepare documents necessary for the new construction in his name. However, the lower court found that the Defendant forged each document in F and D, beyond the scope of the authority delegated by F and D for the purpose of embezzlement of the difference between the actual construction cost and the actual construction cost, and subsequently recognized that the Defendant forged each document in F and D, such as a construction contract in the name of F, for the purpose of embezzlement.

(2) Although there was a fact that the Defendant paid the instant new construction cost received from the victim D to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., Ltd., the subcontractor, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which was partially refunded, the Defendant did not embezzled the returned amount for the new construction of this case, and the K in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. did not pay KRW 37,00,000 with the construction cost, but did not receive a refund of KRW 40,139,000 as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the charge of forging private documents and the charge of uttering of private documents, the Defendant’s assertion that each document recorded in the facts constituting a crime in F’s name was prepared without authority. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

(1) D shall be conducted by investigative agencies and courts.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.30 2016나2011705

-서울고등법원 2013.10.31 2013노2390

-인천지방법원 2019.12.18 2019고단6144

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2015.03.18 2014고단432

-울산지방법원 2013.03.21 2012고정1375