logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.05.14 2013고정2440
횡령
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant agreed with the victim on July 3, 2013 to return the said vehicle to the victim and to settle all the existing unpaid debts, even though the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 3 million per month to the victim under the pretext of installment payments for the said bus and vehicle operation expenses.

Therefore, while the defendant kept the above vehicle for the victim, at around 13:00 on July 2, 2013, the market price of each product was stated in the facts charged in the market price in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon. However, this is based on a estimate received by the victim in installing a new MF and spacker, etc., and the victims also stated that the accurate market price of the relevant product cannot be known, and even without going through the amendments to the indictment, the defendant is not particularly disadvantageous to the defendant, and thus, it is recognized as a "market price defect."

The scar-f antenna has been removed from 1st, 6th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 5th, 5th, 5th, and 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, and 1st, and 1st, which are embezzled.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, G, H and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning report on internal investigation (to attach photographs of suspects);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

2. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse.

3. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. First of all, the Defendant and the defense counsel removed and disposed of the instant vehicle from the vehicle on July 2, 2013, since the parts and accessories thereof were owned by the Defendant on July 2, 2013.

Even to the effect that embezzlement is not established.

Witness

H. H. ..

arrow