logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.11.07 2012고단1202
횡령
Text

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant jointly carries out a land development project of the victim D and the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and six parcels of land development project, and the victim bears the purchase cost, authorization cost, permission cost, and transaction cost. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant took the charge of the construction site operation expenses, which was incurred by the Defendant. On September 23, 2009, while receiving KRW 20 million from the victim as the advance payment for the design cost to F and kept the victim for the sake of the victim, the Defendant embezzled KRW 51,405,000 in total from around that time to March 28, 2010 by paying KRW 10 million to G with the remainder of KRW 10 million.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument is difficult to view that the defendant is in a position to retain another person's property in relation to the victim, and there is no intent to acquire unlawful property, and thus, is not liable for embezzlement.

B. The subject of embezzlement is the custodian of another’s property, and the custody here means the possession of property through a consignment relationship. As such, in order to constitute embezzlement, there exists a legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property. Meanwhile, the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial ought to be based on the evidence with probative value to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined.

C. As to whether the Defendant was in the custody of the victim’s property, the instant case’s health room and whether the Defendant was in the custody of the victim’s property, first of all, the remainder of the facts charged (except [Attachment Table No. 1].

arrow