(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.31 2017노124

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.31 2017노124

횡령

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The portion remitted to K of Fact-misunderstanding (referred to as 1,8,12, 16, 21) was carried out on the basis of service under a contract for the purchase of real estate by the owner on May 19, 201 under the direction of the victim (hereinafter “second service contract”).

The portion remitted to K is paid to M andY (crime Nos. 7, 23), part of the monthly rent for residence (crime Nos. 2, 13, and 20), part of the remittance to AH, etc. (crime Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, and 33) are used as the cost for propal work in accordance with the contract for the purchase of real estate by the person on April 6, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "first service contract").

Nevertheless, the defendant arbitrarily consumed it for personal purposes.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of 1 year and 6 months, which the court below decided against the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily consumeded and embezzled the service price and agreed amount received from the injured party pursuant to the first service contract as stated in the lower judgment, as stated in the first service contract.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

1) The second service contract related to the part remitted to K is a real estate purchase agency contract with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu I and J (hereinafter “V site”) for the real estate purchase business with respect to K. The contractual party is the victim and the defendant, and K is the defendant’s partner, and the victim is obliged to pay the V site service cost to the defendant in accordance with the above service contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노1667

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2015가합536693

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.04.17 2017노194

-서울고등법원 2018.08.30 2018노879

-수원지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가합77236