beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the breach of trust (the second offense of the original judgment) is reversed.
Of the facts charged in this case, the charge of breach of trust is established.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
With respect to the embezzlement of occupational duties, the Defendant: (a) as a payment claim for the loans to H or the Defendant’s G (State) against H’s wage claims and H or the Defendant’s G, the Defendant granted the registration of ownership transfer to J apartment 401 located in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and two parcels; and (b) the Defendant is not subject to embezzlement of occupational duties.
With respect to the breach of trust, the Defendant agreed to the payment of the unpaid debt of KRW 170 million against K to K, and to transfer the said principal apartment to M as payment of the outstanding debt of KRW 170,000,000 to 50,000,000,000 owned by the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L, and to the payment of the outstanding debt of KRW 170,000,000 to 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (no. 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor and no. 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The judgment of H or the defendant on the argument that H or the defendant has a claim for wages and loans that are unpaid to G (State) with about 156 million won against G (State), the defendant alleged that H has a claim for unpaid wages of about 156 million won against G (State), and that H has a claim for unpaid wages of about 156 million won against the State, and that H has a claim for unpaid wages of about 156 million won between AA (State) and H (State in the employment contract concluded on June 1, 2004 between AA (State in the original trial), G (State in the payment agreement made on August 6, 2008 between the defendant and the defendant on August 27, 2008, the meeting minutes of the board of directors (Evidence 5) of G (State submitted by the defendant in the original trial), and the meeting minutes of H (State in the meeting of August 27, 2008 between H and H (State).