(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2017노9638 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2017노9638

업무상횡령

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) was guilty of the facts in the judgment of the court below) (A) The Defendant did not instruct the Defendant B to withdraw the funds of the victim company.

(B) The withdrawal of the instant funds by the intent of unlawful acquisition was merely a temporary transfer of funds scheduled for repayment or settlement, and there was no intent of unlawful acquisition.

(C) On April 30, 2013, 150,000 won, which was withdrawn from the account of the victim company on April 30, 2013 (No. 3) was withdrawn from the account of the victim company on April 15, 2013.

150,000 won (No. 1 of the above table) deposited in the account of the victim company, which was immediately withdrawn.

Therefore, if the withdrawal of funds from April 15, 2013 constitutes embezzlement, the act of withdrawal of funds from April 30, 2013 constitutes an act of ex post facto withdrawal of punishment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misleads the facts (the part not guilty in the judgment below) (A) and embezzled on May 6, 2013 (No. 5) Defendant A purchased cosmetics, a commemorative gift for the opening of the victim company, on or before July 2013, more than three months prior to the opening of the business.

However, in light of the fact that the tax invoice was issued on August 6, 2013, and the above tax invoice was issued in the name of P Co., Ltd. with the representative of Defendant A’s wife, not the cosmetics supplier, the Defendants’ defense that Defendant A made up for the funds of the victim company with respect to the advance payment of the cosmetics price is difficult.

(B) On May 10, 2013, G, a general manager of the Victim Company’s (No. 6 No. 5)’s sales store for the purpose of embezzlement (the foregoing title No. 6), is aware that this part of the money was remitted as a loan to R, a land owner of Defendant A, and that it is not related to the Victim Company’s Human Rights Corporation.

In light of the statement, the above money is the body of the victim company.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2014.12.17 2013고합753

-대전지방법원 2018.12.06 2017고단2107

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.02.04 2015고단1314

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.19 2014고합605

-청주지방법원 2017.02.17 2015고단1215