logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.20 2015노3694
업무상배임등
Text

Defendant

Of the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below against A, the part on occupational breach of trust and fraud and the guilty part shall be respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles as to the interference with business affairs and Defendant A did not participate in the process of entering into a contract with AB (hereinafter “AB”).

In addition, the above defendant interfered with U's business concerning U's selection of a supply company of lighting fixtures by fraudulent means.

There was no intention to interfere with the business, and there was a risk that the act of the above defendant would result in the interference with the business.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The misunderstanding of the legal principles on the receipt of property in breach of trust from Gro and the misunderstanding of the legal principles did not receive an illegal solicitation, and Defendant A used the said money for installation costs, such as the purchase of solar energy, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the imprisonment of 10 months, the suspended sentence of 2 years, the additional collection of 5,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of the facts as to interference with business and misunderstanding of the legal principles) requested that A assist the registration of AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) as a partner company of this U.S., and the subsequent date did not request or participate in the request. Thus, there is no conspiracy with A, etc. about interference with business.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

E1) Defendant E was not in a position to exercise the authority on the date of selecting the supplier as the deputy head of the previous team or to put pressure into another department.

2) Travel expenses, such as airline tickets, etc. received by Defendant E from Defendant E as to the receipt of breach of trust, are provided under the subparagraphs of the friendship relationship, not the consideration for illegal solicitation.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant E (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, five thousand five hundred and seventy years of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

(e)an inspector 1);

arrow