logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.01.06 2011노1597
사기등
Text

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts as follows: (a) the Defendant used the corporate card for personal use; (b) it constitutes embezzlement to give gift certificates to M not related to the partnership affairs, but to those who do not engage in any work related to the partnership affairs; and (c) there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was peculiar on October 21, 2009; and (d) there is no evidence to prove that he was a 3,084,200 won embezzlement due to the use of the corporate card among the facts charged in the instant case; (b) it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of embezzlement of 1,239,259 won under the pretext of extra hours; and (b) it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below as to the embezzlement of 200,000 won under the pretext of embezzlement duty allowance; and (b) it was unjust in sentencing of 300,000 won.

B. On October 19, 2009, the Defendant held a meeting by the former president, Q2, L former advisers, G president, I director, and R former managing director to discuss the issues related to the partnership-related issues. After the completion of the meeting, the Defendant used KRW 400,000 in cash in the course of business to come into contact with the former managing director and I director.

After that, the Defendant received the above KRW 400,000 from E, who is a person in charge of accounting, and E, shall make a trip for three days from October 15, 2009 to July 17, 200, to account the above KRW 400,000,000, and he shall not obtain the above KRW 310,00 from the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s assertion 1) First of all, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, as well as K and E, has used a corporate card in the name of an association for personal purposes as well as the procedures for using the corporate card.

arrow