logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2021.01.21 2020고단4339
업무상횡령
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a representative director in charge of the management of the victim company's business and funds as the victim company's management company and the representative director in charge of the management of the victim company.

1. On October 23, 2019, the Defendant most embezzled of the price of goods: (a) transferred the money 28,990,000 won owned by the victim’s company in the account in the name of the victim’s bank account to the F bank account in the name of the customer (E) by pretending to settle the price of goods in the account in the name of the victim’s company; (b) returned the money to the G bank account in the name of B (A) on the same day; and (c) subsequently, used the money for the Defendant’s debt repayment, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was kept in business.

2. On October 30, 2019, the Defendant most embezzled benefits, at the victim company’s office, remitted KRW 1,598,560 to the F bank account in the name of the victim company as if the victim company’s corporate director was paid to the victim company’s corporate director H, and received the money returned to the G bank account in the name of B on the same day, and subsequently, returned KRW 6,62,960 in total by the same method four times as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and consumed the amount of living expenses, etc. around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was kept in business.

[Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel] In the case of the amount of money under Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts, the defendant argued that he paid the price for the goods to a private entrepreneur D, who is the other party to the contract, and paid the price for the goods under the name of the company, and then returned the price for the goods to an individual entrepreneur as an individual passbook. However, the contract is not cancelled retrospectively, but the price for the goods already delivered by the private entrepreneur on April 2019 is handled in the name of the other party to the transaction.

arrow