logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.04.23 2014고단3740
횡령
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. A summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is the vice president of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

The Defendants, around May 24, 2013, in the G Office of the Co., Ltd., which is operated by the victim F in the second 415 of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building E-building No. 415, received KRW 30 million from the victim and the victim employees, on the same day, money was transferred from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., by stating that "D, with 20 production workers working in the chemical factory in the chemical city, and approximately KRW 30 million monthly sales of the air smoker, is about KRW 7 billion.

However, in fact, the LAD did not have a facility capable of mass production of air disinfectant, and the sales amount was not significant, and even if the Defendants receive the contract deposit, they did not have the intent or ability to grant the victim the right to make a nationwide sales of air disinfectant.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim and received 30 million won from the victim.

2. According to the judgment below, according to the defendants' each legal statement, part of witness F's witness F's legal statement, witness I's legal statement (for defendant Gap, part of witness I's witness I's statement in the sixth protocol of the trial), document submission order (Dongwon Tax Office), and the meeting of documents submission order, it is acknowledged that the company in charge of the settlement of accounts was supplied by the company "J" without being equipped with a separate production plant and the annual sales amount was considerably less than seven billion won.

However, such circumstance alone is difficult to conclude that the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. had no capacity to stably supply the air disinfectant product to the G at the time of the instant case (or the ability to exercise the national total sales right to the air disinfectant). At the time of the instant case, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd was less than the sales size.

arrow