logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.27 2017고단895
횡령방조
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. On May 19, 2012, C, the summary of the facts charged, died by father D on May 19, 2012. On October 12, 2012, C, an heir, including the victim E, the victim F, the victim G, and his heir, who is the Defendant’s birth, made a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, and Gwangju Northern-gu, and No. 101, 804, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Seoul, entered into a trust agreement in the name of the victim to sell the real estate in the name of Da and distribute the purchase price for each inheritance share under the Civil Act.

On December 5, 2014, the Defendant changed the maximum amount of the existing claim amount of KRW 300 million to H land at Naju-si without the consent of the victim E, the victim F, and the victim G on December 5, 2014 to KRW 336 million, and the Defendant established the debtor's right to a lower-ranking claim against L and the mortgagee as the NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd., and

On November 27, 2012, after cancelling the right to collateral security and being aware of the fact that additional loans were granted, the act of lending the name of L, which is the defendant's wife, was easily prevented.

2. The facts charged for the reasons for prosecution are those falling under Articles 355(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, and in the case of kinship between the victim and the defendant under Articles 361 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act, a public prosecution may be instituted only when the victim files a criminal complaint.

According to the facts charged and the records, victim E, F, and G can be known that they are relatives who are not living together by the defendant. Thus, they are relatives under Article 328 (2) of the Criminal Code.

According to the written withdrawal of a complaint filed in the public trial records, the victims are recognized to have withdrawn the complaint on June 14, 2018 after the institution of the instant case. Thus, the prosecution of the instant case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow