(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.1.7. 선고 2013고합690 판결

From July 199 to October 8, 2012, Defendant A worked as the head of the management department in the victim D management (ju) E, and was engaged in the business of taking charge of the overall management of the company, such as purchase, delivery, collection, and product management.

The defendant was delegated with the right to overall management of the company by the victim so that the management, disposition, etc. of the company's products can be easily performed, so that he had a mind to deduct the victim's future products and dispose of them.

around June 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sold 2B (2.5 x 1020 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 20 x c) from May 1, 2012 to July 20, 2012; (b) disposed of 30,389,76,250 won of the market value of the victim’s possession, which the Defendant had been in his/her custody, to G without permission; and (c) sold 7,914K from May 1, 2012 to July 20, 2012, the Defendant disposed of 19,476,250 won in total as the customer’s account; and (c) received the payment from the Defendant without permission.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the product amounting to KRW 199,476,250, which is owned by the victim while on duty.

2. Embezzlement of the amount;

In August 2011, the Defendant, while receiving KRW 12,178,00 from the Defendant’s business partner (ju) E and keeping it for business purposes, embezzled the total sum of KRW 109,316,120 as shown in the attached Table 2 between around that time and around October 2012, as shown in the same manner, during nine times as indicated in the annexed Table 2 among the police officers from around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled 109,316,120 won of money owned by the victim who is in custody in the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of I, J, K, L, or M;

1. Each police protocol of statement about D, G, and N;

1. A certificate of a person;

1. Certificates of L,O, P, and Q respectively;

1. Details of transactions, details of transactions, and personal financial transactions;

1. Photographs of damaged articles;

1. Investigation report (verification of scope of duties when a suspect remains in office);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement/Misappropriation, Type 2 (at least KRW 100,000, less than KRW 500,000)

[Scope of Recommendation) Imprisonment from one year to three years (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

○ In light of the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime reaches KRW 300 million and has not been recovered from considerable damage, and that the victim wants to punish the Defendant, the sentence is inevitable to sentence the Defendant, but the punishment is to be determined in consideration of the fact that the Defendant both recognized and reflected in the crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A

The Defendant: (a) in the same manner as indicated in paragraph (1) of the judgment at the same place as indicated in the judgment; (b) around March 201, 201, at the end of 140 x 1219 x 2438) 4,960 KG, which the Defendant had been in his/her custody on business, were disposed of to R without permission; and (c) until April 2012, as indicated in paragraphs (1) through (29 of the attached Table 1 of the List of Crimes Nos. 179,593,00 won in total, 18 times in total, and was deposited into R, and was deposited into the account of his/her passbook.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the product amounting to KRW 179,593,00,00 which is owned by the victim in the course of business.

B. Defendant B

around March 26, 2011, the Defendant: (a) purchased approximately 17,40,960 KG from around 140 to April 7, 201, approximately 17,409,59,593,000, a total of 18 times in the market price, and acquired approximately 179,593,00,370 won in the market price, by purchasing approximately 140,960 KG at about 10 percent of the market price, with knowledge of the fact that the content products embezzled in Section A are stolen in Section A, from R operated by the Defendant in Yongyang-si around March 26, 201; and (b) purchased approximately 179,593,000, more than the market price, as described in Section 12-12 through 29 of the List of Crimes from April 7, 2012.

2. Summary of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion

In the case of Defendant A, the content products sold to Defendant B (R) are only sold to Defendant B (R) by purchasing T and U articles and selling them to Defendant B (R).

In the case of Defendant B, it is because Defendant A received orders for the content products and received them, and Defendant A did not know at all whether Defendant A embezzled, and the reason why Defendant A remitted the price to a place known to Defendant A for business difficulties at the time was due to Defendant A’s request with the knowledge that there was business difficulties at the time. The reason why Defendant B did not issue a tax invoice is that Defendant B requested several times but Defendant A did not issue the tax invoice.

3. Determination

Defendant A’s health account statement as to whether the content products sold to Defendant A are the products of Party E, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Defendant A, the president of the Red Cross, demanded that the victim D, who is a child-friendly and the victim D, pay a large amount of money, and prepare it as much as possible. Defendant A, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A’s criminal facts stated in the judgment, consistently denies the content products of this part sold to R; (b) T and U from January 2010 to April 2012, it is difficult to conclude that the content products were sold to other companies through Defendant A through this Court; (c) Defendant A submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the content products were sold to Defendant A through the victim D, the president of the Red Cross, the victim D, were forced to acquire the stolen products and received the agreed amount; and (d) Defendant A demanded that the most reasonable amount of money would be paid. In light of the following: (d) Defendant A’s criminal facts stated in the judgment, it is difficult to conclude that the content products were sold to the other companies through Defendant A and U.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant A constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found that Defendant B is guilty of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment which was charged for a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of innocence is not rendered separately, and the facts charged against Defendant B also constitute a case where there is no proof of

Judges

presiding judge, judge, full-time leaves

The number of judges

Judges Doo-leap

Note tin

1) Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts to the effect that this part should be excluded from the cross-fluence, since Defendant A’s defense counsel partially returned money to the victim. However, this part is merely an circumstance after the crime and is groundless.

2) (Subject to the premise that this part of content products are products E) Defendant B’s intentional acquisition of stolen goods does not appear to have been prepared by Defendant A, and there is no evidence as to this part. As seen earlier, Defendant A merely prepared upon the victim D’s request. Rather, Defendant A, as alleged by Defendant B, notified the account number to be paid for the payment to Defendant B separately, and stated that Defendant B did not need money but did not prepare it. Defendant B’s commencement of purchase of the products via Defendant B from July 2010 to approximately KRW 43820,000,000,000,000 won, and it is difficult to conclude that Defendant B’s purchase of all products was the stolen goods at the price of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000 won, which were half of the purchase price of all products. In light of the circumstances that Defendant B and the victim’s wife were not aware, it is difficult to view that Defendant B and the victim’s wife were the Plaintiff’s 1’s.

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.07 2013고합690

-서울고등법원 2014.05.20 2014노303

-서울남부지방법원 2014.07.18 2014노328

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.02.06 2012고정1058

-전주지방법원 2016.12.08 2016고단729