logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2013.10.25 2013고정390
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant has been engaged in business management team employees of the victim company D's business management team from May 2001 to October 201, 201, such as sales of used cars and sales proceeds of the victim company.

The Defendant made a false report to the victim company as if he sold used cars at a price lower than the actual selling price due to insufficient expenses related to the business activities of E and the above business management team, which is the head of the business management team of the above company, and raised the difference as non-funds, and managed it, offered to use it as activity funds, such as the street funds and revolving expenses of the business management team, and determined the trading price and company reporting price of used cars necessary for raising non-funds, and the Defendant shared the duties of expenditure and use funds in accordance with the direction of E while opening and managing the non-funds account.

On April 29, 2009, the Defendant voluntarily created KRW 168,134,417 in total by the aforementioned method between April 9, 2009 and October 5, 2010 as follows: (a) even though the Defendant sold the FWz car of the said company at KRW 38,200,000,000, by falsely reporting as if it were sold at KRW 37,000,000; and (b) as if it were to have been sold at KRW 37,00,000,000, the difference was arbitrarily raised as non-funds.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with the above E and embezzled KRW 168,134,417 of the above company’s funds kept in business by the Defendant and E.

2. Determination

A. Although a company’s non-financial funds kept and managed by the defendant were withdrawn and used, there is insufficient data to recognize that the defendant used non-financial funds in the use place claimed by the defendants, such as where the defendant did not properly explain his/her whereabouts or use place, or where the funds used in the use place claimed by the defendant were appropriated to other funds than the funds. Rather, the defendants used non-financial funds.

arrow