logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018노2044
업무상횡령등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Judgment of the court below 1. A of mistake of facts

B. The most of the criminal facts of port embezzlement are the company's transaction price or cost related to the company.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts of the crime in this part and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant used the money in his/her custody in his/her own custody due to failure to explain his/her whereabouts or location, or disclosure of funds used in his/her place of use claimed by the defendant for other funds, etc., and there are more reliable evidence to prove that the defendant used the money in his/her personal use, it may be presumed that the defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do457, Mar. 14, 2000). The following circumstances, which can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the court below’s 1-A.

The money stated in the Paragraph (1) is that the defendant transferred a large amount of money to the account under the name of the principal, husband, or pilot who is unrelated to the victim company in the account of the victim company managed by the defendant, and the defendant recognized this part of the criminal facts by the investigative agency up to the original trial, but the defendant never denies it as above without any explanation on the reason for it in the first instance.

In the case of the money described in paragraph (1), any disbursement data or evidentiary data by L, M, etc., which is the counterpart to the payment, are not prepared, and there is no change in the process of the disbursement of the defendant, which is a vague and abstract, and against the contrary, M's statement investigation agency on the method of travel and cost payment at ordinary times;

arrow