logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.23 2017노9455
횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant paid rent with the funds of the victim association by leasing the studio of this case in the name of the victim association. However, this is because the Defendant paid rent on behalf of the M, who is an employee of the victim association, and thus, does not have the intent of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 18, 2015, the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, concluded a lease agreement on the instant room room in the name of the victim union, setting the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and from September 1, 2015 to September 1, 2016 between the lease term of KRW 350,000,000 in the name of the victim union. Since the date of conclusion of the contract, the Defendant’s cab M resided in the above room, and ② was employed as a member of the management of the victim union.

H was determined by the court below that there was no resolution of the board of directors at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement.

The statement, 3. From September 1, 2015 to December 2, 2015, M was present at 9:0 p.m. at 1-2:0 p.m. each day at the victim union from September 1, 2015 to the court below’s decision.

However, H stated that M does not memory the working at the victim union from the end of August 2015 or from the end of September 9, 2015, and it is not clear whether M actually worked at the victim union from the time M resided in the above studio; and ④ even if M had worked at the victim union during the above period, it is not clear whether M worked at the victim union.

Even if the defendant, without any specific ground, sought a accommodation in the name of the victim association and paid the rent with the funds of the victim association, and Ma from January 2016.

arrow