logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.23 2014노6
횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the purchaser of the instant apartment is not the defendant, but the victim, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim falls under the “ bilateral title trust” rather than the so-called “contractual title trust” or the “third party title trust (the intermediate omitted title trust)” and thus, embezzlement against the defendant is established.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around June 19, 2008, the Defendant, along with the victim D, invested KRW 237 million in the value of KRW 1206,00,000,000,000 for each of the 60,000,000,000,000,000 for each of the 17,000,000,000,000; (b) purchased the ownership registration under the sole name of the Defendant; and (c) was in custody of 1/2,000,000,000 won for the said real property in the mutual unsound certified judicial scrivener office located in Incheon around February 2, 2010; and (d) arbitrarily established a collateral security amount of KRW 12,00,000 for the said real property to F with the maximum debt amount of KRW 12,00

3. The lower court determined based on the evidence presented, on the premise that there was a title trust agreement between the Defendant and the victim, which registers and registers in the name of the Defendant all the part of the victim’s share in the apartment of this case, namely, that the victim participated in the whole process of purchasing the apartment from G, accompanied by the Defendant at the time of concluding the contract, and that G was aware of the victim as the purchaser, but on the other hand, G thought “A” recorded as the purchaser of the contract without any interest in the actual name of the victim, as the purchaser of the contract, and ② G concluded the contract with the purchaser and concluded the contract with the third party who is not the purchaser, there was no awareness that the purchaser would be a third party who is not the purchaser. Accordingly, the title trust and its structure that is naturally different from the third party, and ③ the seller and the purchaser are both the buyer and the seller.

arrow