logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.02.13 2013고정1175
횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 19, 2009, the Defendant leased and operated a “F” restaurant owned by the victim E in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, for free, and used PAVTV 4.

On May 14, 2010, while the Defendant kept four said TV sets for the victim, the Defendant terminated the said restaurant business and left the said restaurant, and sold at his own discretion the said four TV sets to the names of the winners of the TV for KRW 2 million.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled four TV sets owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of each police suspect examination protocol against the accused;

1. Application of each police statement statute to E, G, and H;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant's four TV sets are owned by the defendant, since the defendant started business in the above restaurant, E is a gift to the defendant.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit embezzlement against the defendant.

2. The foregoing restaurant building is owned by E, namely, the evidence presented prior to the determination, and the following circumstances recognized by E, namely, that E is leased free of charge to the Defendant, who is the births of women G, and that the four TVs purchased by E and installed in the above restaurant, and its use in real time shows the image of the wild boar pigs farm. In light of the above, the four TVs donated by E to the Defendant.

Rather than that, E is included in facilities leased to the defendant free of charge, and ownership of the above buildings, etc. is deemed to have been reserved to E.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow