logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.26 2015노295
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding facts, the fund created and kept by the Defendant under the name of the E Management Committee (hereinafter “the fund of this case”) as the chairperson of the E Management Committee (the defendant refers to various names such as “E Committee” and “E Management Promotion Committee” in addition to the “E Management Committee, but the exact name is unclear; hereinafter “E Management Committee” in this Article referred to as the “E Management Committee”) in order to establish an office of the Category D D D branch of the Organization C (hereinafter “F”) as the chairperson of the E Management Committee, which was deposited in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the fund of this case”) is not a kind of kind of meeting but an E Management Committee’s ownership. Thus, even if the Defendant returned it to the members of the E Management Committee by resolution of the members of the E Management Committee, it cannot

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's decision on the unfair sentencing is too unreasonable to impose a fine of 500,000 won on the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Fund was deposited in the name of the Defendant at an ordinary meeting of relatives, which was held on March 27, 2013 and was rejected by the Defendant’s proposal to return the Fund to donors at an ordinary meeting of relatives, which was held on March 27, 2013. A resolution was adopted to deposit the Fund in a financial institution under the name of 35 million won among the Fund. However, the Defendant withdrawn the Fund in violation of the above resolution and re-deposit it in the name of F around April 3, 2013.

arrow