logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.04.11 2012노3290
업무상배임등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to occupational embezzlement, which is the part of the judgment of the court below, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to occupational embezzlement, which is the part of the judgment of the court below, since the judgment of this court becomes final and conclusive, the judgment of this court is limited to occupational embezzlement, which is the part of the acquittal.

2. The summary of the facts charged regarding occupational embezzlement is the representative director of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) located in F 313 from January 12, 2006 to June 30, 2008, and has been engaged in the business affairs responsible for overall management of the company, such as fund management of the above company.

In order to manage funds of the victim company, the defendant kept the passbook in the name of the victim company on his/her business for the victim company.

On January 21, 2008, the defendant transferred KRW 25 million from the company bank account in the name of the victim to the company bank account in the name of the defendant in the name of the victim, and then arbitrarily remitted money to C to pay for the purchase price of goods to the company of Taiwan.

B. Around February 1, 2008, the Defendant transferred KRW 47 million to a corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant used in C from the corporate bank account in the name of the victim company to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant at the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government corporate bank's additional digital complex, and then arbitrarily remitted money to C for the repayment of the loan to H.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, i.e., the defendant operated C with the victim company, and during which the victim company and C have continuously exchanged funds.

arrow