logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노4822
횡령
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts)’s embezzlement of this case is merely an offense committed by the joint Defendant B solely by the joint Defendant B, and Defendant A did not have conspired with the above Defendant B.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by Defendant B (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant transferred the LAE corporation to B around February 2015, and the Defendant paid the leasing fee of the instant corporate lessee from March 2015, but the Defendant was found to have been operating the instant leased vehicle as a director of the said company after the transfer of the corporation, and under consultation with B, continued to operate the instant leased vehicle as a collateral to the bond company. ② The Defendant, as the representative director E, as the party to the instant lease contract, was the party to the instant lease contract, did not succeed to the status of the said joint guarantor as the above corporation as the representative director of the E company, and after the transfer of the corporation, the Defendant did not necessarily have succeeded to a third party, such as the new representative director, who newly purchased the status of the said joint guarantor, and the Defendant appears to have agreed to borrow money from the instant leased company as collateral due to lack of operating funds, ③ the Defendant was issued a certificate of the instant leased as collateral.

The assertion is made on June 2015, and around B around 2015, public conflict, coercion, etc.

arrow