logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.08.20 2014고단2377
횡령등
Text

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,00,00 for the first and second crimes in the judgment of the court, and the third crimes in the judgment of the court.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Jeonju District Court for fraud. On November 21, 2012, the Jeonju District Court sentenced six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud and completed the execution of the sentence in the Jeonju Prison on April 7, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】 The Defendant was under economic difficulties, such as having been unable to repay debt worth KRW 60 million as a person of bad credit standing from around 2010.

1. Around November 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sold the vehicle with the victim E at the “D” parking lot located in the Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City; and (b) purchased from F any G 11,500,000 won; (c) around that time, the Defendant revealed that the said vehicle was a stolen vehicle, and subsequently, notified the victim of the refund of the purchase price and the F.

F is also acceptable and agreed to refund the purchase price, but the defendant was the victim who received it and prepared the purchase price. Accordingly, F, from April 2014 to September 2014, 11,250,000 won in cash and checks to the defendant several times in a coffee shop, etc. located in Hai-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around September 2014, and F embezzled it for personal purposes, such as the payment of the defendant's debt, etc.

2. Around July 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) provided the Defendant’s arbitrarily provided the Defendant’s creditors as a security for the Defendant’s obligation, and embezzled it by providing the Defendant’s arbitrary possession of the Defendant’s debt to the Defendant’s creditors at around that time while the Defendant was holding the Defendant’s custody for the victim, on the following grounds: “A vehicle needs to be operated on and following the day and following the day of the opening of the business in which the Defendant started his/her wife to open his/her business. When any vehicle or loaned, he/she will use and return it within this frame immediately.”

"2015 Highest 929".

arrow