logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.11.24 2015노1759
횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had a claim exceeding KRW 110 million against the victim at the time of the instant case, the Defendant used only 10,000,000 as stated in the facts charged by means of appropriation for the Defendant’s claim, and thus, even though the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement or did not have the awareness of illegality, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of occupational embezzlement in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property, such as his/her own property, which is kept in violation of his/her occupational duties, for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and has an intention to return, compensate

Even if this is recognized, there is no obstacle.

In addition, since the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above illegal acquisition was explicitly expressed externally, the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods.

In the absence of special circumstances such as the settlement of offset before the crime of embezzlement, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do59 Decided March 14, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431 Decided June 2, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871 Decided June 14, 2012; etc.)

Even such circumstance alone that the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

It can not be said that there was no perception of illegality.

The reasoning of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

arrow