(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.01.15 2014고정197

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.01.15 2014고정197

업무상횡령

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From January 2012, the Defendant is a person who serves as the principal of Gangnam-si C.

On July 2, 2012, the Defendant purchased home appliances equivalent to 660,000 won at the market price of 32 persons LED TV 1,000 won at the village hall on credit from the Hadra on July 2, 2012, and took over them on or around the 6th day of the same month and took them over for the victim C on or around August 2012, the Defendant got 60,000 won at the Defendant’s home in the amount of 32 persons (32 persons) at the market price of 660,000 won in the middle of the same month.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim C in the amount of 660,000 won of the market price while he kept it for business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Some statements in the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (the investigative records, the pages 20, the pages 24);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (the confinement in a workhouse for the period by which 100,000 won is converted into one day);

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (including the fact that the defendant would bear the expenses equivalent to the market price of TV in purchasing other equipment necessary for the community hall, the fact after reporting it to the Steering Committee and obtaining approval, the fact that the crime of this case is against the crime of this case, and the fact that there is no criminal power other than the punishment of fines twice for other kinds of crimes so far). However, it is true that the defendant brought one of the LETV to the house, but the above TV bears the burden of the households, etc. which are unable to conduct credit transactions in consideration of the nature of the subsidy at the defendant's expense.

참조조문

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.08.12 2015고단1768

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.17 2018고단865

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2014.12.24 2014고정692

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.03.10 2015고정1159

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.07.24 2014고단842