logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.01.16 2013고단1696
업무상횡령
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be set forth in six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant served as a business member of the victim limited liability company B from October 14, 2011 to March 13, 2013, and supplied alcoholic beverages from the said company to the main shop, restaurant, etc., which is the customer, and was engaged in the business of delivering the alcoholic beverages to the said company upon receiving the sales proceeds.

From September 18, 2012 to March 13, 2013, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to “D restaurant”, which is a customer, at the office of the company from around September 18, 2012 to around March 13, 2013, and embezzled KRW 4,925,680 in total sales proceeds received from the said “D restaurant”, by arbitrarily consuming KRW 4,269,980 among them, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 655,70 in daily expenses, etc. under the name of living expenses, etc. from that time until March 13, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the part concerning entry of the statement in E in the second police interrogation protocol to the accused;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration to the agreement with the victim, etc.);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. of Application for Compensation (in case of an agreement between the defendant and the victim, the scope of Defendant’s liability for compensation is unclear

arrow