logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017고단739
횡령
Text

Defendants are innocent.

Reasons

The defendants are aware of the introduction of D, and there is a gap between them.

Defendant

A around December 11, 2015, within the modern vehicle F agency located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around December 1, 2015, A entered into a car siren contract with the victim's Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with "874,500 won per month rental rate of 874,500 won, and siren period of "54 months in total from January 15, 2016 to June 15, 2020". Under a contract, the Defendants were provided with the said vehicle and stored for the victim on or around January 15, 2016. The Defendants conspired with the Defendant to deliver the said vehicle with the vehicle each abandoned vehicle, the vehicle storage certificate, and the loan certificate affixed the seal imprint, and the Defendant B provided the above vehicle with the above vehicle at his own discretion on or around February 18, 2016, with the name of 306,300,000 won under the market price of the victim's parking lot at around 30,000 won.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to dispose of the property owned by the victim at will and embezzled.

Judgment

1. In full view of the Defendants’ testimony from the investigation to the public trial, the following facts are recognized, and the Defendants and D, under the investigation by the public prosecutor, made a statement on the same dispute. Even though such content does not coincide with the facts charged, the examination to pursue the credibility of their statements was almost not conducted.

Only the change was included in these lawsuits.

It does not point out that the investigation is defective.

① Defendant A’s introduction is a space between Defendant B and Defendant B, known to him.

② Defendant A, while the husband’s vehicle was worn out, did not fully state the husband, entered into a siren contract with Defendant B with the introduction of a modern automobile business employee.

③ However, unlike the defendant's idea, the husband refuses to use the new vehicle and is a high penalty.

arrow