(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.20 2017노2396 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2018.02.20 2017노2396

업무상횡령

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to each evidence of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below acquitted the defendant, although the defendant did not distribute dancing fertilizers to the residents as stated in the facts charged of this case and recognized the fact of embezzlement, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances indicated in the records of the instant case, i.e., (b) the residents of the village who received dance-type fertilizers (hereinafter “instant fertilizers”) from the Defendant at around August 2013, 201; (c) did not receive fertilizers; and (d) did not receive fertilizers.

The No. 18 G, in which a public action was brought, has been prepared at the request of the petitioner, but actually received the fertilizer of this case assigned to him/her from the defendant.

The testimony at the court of the court below, <3> In the event that the fertilizers of this case were not paid as individual quotas, most of the memorys of residents of this country are old and old, and <4> In particular, whether the fertilizers paid to other villages are distorted or not.

“The first issue was raised at the Village Assembly in 2013.

The petitioner E also argued that he had not been paid any fertilizer until the time of filing the petition of this case in 2016, and that at the time of the filing of the petition of this case, the village residents had not been discussed about the criminal punishment of the defendant, and that at the time of 2013, the reason why the community residents did not discuss about the criminal punishment of the defendant is not unreasonable, and that the H agency I and the delivery engineer J delivered approximately 200 fertilizer of this case to the defendant's office.

The portion of the fertilizer 20km 187 Posphere is reasonable, and if the defendant's office is delivered, it is delivered to the defendant's office.

If the village people did not know about it, there is no scarcity which contains fertilizers in the village.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2017.07.13 2016고정317

-대구지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나423

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2012.10.16 2012고정126

-의정부지방법원 2018.02.22 2017고정489