logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.02.10 2013고단3067
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from January 16, 2010 to November 201, 201, was engaged in the sales, collection, etc. of the timber produced by the victim C&D branch as an agent at the victim C&D branch, and around September 14, 2010, upon receiving an order from the above C&D branch to pay the said company to the business partner, he paid only part of the said company while carrying out business for the said company, and used the remaining 925.00PNGn for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc., in mind at the place of the said P&D branch, daily members of the said branch, Australia, etc. around that time, to October 11, 2011, the Defendant embezzled 60,831.0GNn050,500 in total, and embezzled 54 times in the same way as the daily list of crimes, and embezzled 54 times in total.

2. Comprehensively taking account of each of the following facts acknowledged by the prosecutor’s submission of the judgment and the witness E and F’s testimony, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant embezzled the victim’s money in the same manner as the facts charged solely on the ground that the Defendant was unable to clearly explain the source of money deposited into the local bank account of Papua New Zealand, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The victim’s complainants agent filed a complaint specifying the entire amount deposited in the local bank account of the Defendant Papua New Zealand as the embezzlement amount of the Defendant’s embezzlement, and the prosecution also prosecuted the entire amount as embezzlement amount. The Defendant asserted that the local branch office’s payment in cash includes dispatch allowances paid to the Defendant, and that E, working with the Defendant, was paid in local currency at the time.

(2) The method of embezzlement as stated in the facts charged is only a part of the fee that the defendant received from the head of the branch office to pay to his customer.

arrow