logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2015노108
업무상횡령
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below in erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant, as the representative director of the victim company, entered into a partnership contract with I and human subjects business with O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”).

(2) The Defendant did not have an intent to illegally obtain the portion of the apartment construction cost, N’s restaurant and coffee shop construction cost, which was contracted under the name of the victim company, from November 7, 2013 to the account of community credit cooperatives established in the name of the victim company before receiving KRW 30 million from G to receive KRW 30 million. Of the agreed amount received from G and H, the amount of the apartment contracted under the name of the victim company was deposited into the account of each of the above construction cost. As to the portion of the agreed amount, which was used as the construction cost, N’s restaurant and coffee shop construction cost, and 2.5 million won as the construction cost, the Defendant did not have an intention to obtain the illegal acquisition. Furthermore, 7,517,750 won, which the Defendant lent to P individually, was returned to the above account in the name of the victim company, and voluntarily consumed for living expenses, etc., was returned to the above account in the name of the victim company, and thus, the lower court did not have an intent to obtain the unlawful acquisition on each of the above portion.

B. As to the acquittal portion of the reasons in the judgment of the court below, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was registered in the representative director of the victim company in order to handle civil and criminal affairs to receive the payment of construction price from G and H, and his/her power of representation is limited to the above business. Thus, the defendant's act of using the agreed amount received at his/her own discretion in the process of performing the above business without permission of C, the actual representative director in excess of the scope of the above power of representation, and concealing the agreed amount by opening a separate

arrow