logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.24 2015노3507
업무상배임
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s mistake of facts) ① (A) concluded the instant design modification contract on October 10, 2012, and subsequently executed the funds thereafter on or after November 2012, 2012, and Defendant returned KRW 200 million for the design station for which he paid excessive amount of KRW 100,000 from Y is a policeman on December 2012.

② As the representative director of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), U.S., who is the accuser, was aware of the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust in the process of approving the above design change contract and the fund execution.

③ The above KRW 200 million has the character as a compensation for the Defendant faithfully endeavored to conduct the S’s business, such as the Yeongdeungpo Military V apartment business, etc., which may be deemed as a modified benefit.

B) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the facts charged that "the defendant paid UD services fees to the designing firm and received the difference, and ordered U to pay the station expenses for the design of softened design, and embezzled them by receiving KRW 200 million from Y on October 2012, 201," is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant C was able to obtain a PF loan from a foreign exchange bank upon the request of friendly job offering A, and there was no demand for the PF loan arrangement from A, and Gyeongnam, which is irrelevant to the Defendant, granted KRW 385 million to AB in relation to loans from the Happy to the Defendant, and AB paid KRW 30 million out of 30 million to the Defendant as performance-based bonus.

Nevertheless, the defendant ordered S to arrange loans for the purpose of receiving honorariums from A.

The judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2...

arrow