logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노1860
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant agreed to pay the lost cost to the victim company for the temporary reproduction of the building that was damaged and lost, there was no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 6, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant leased the construction materials, such as the victim’s 23 houses E at the site of the public construction project in Yong-si, the Defendant: (b) “I would like to provide us with 23 houses E; (c) would lease the construction materials at the site of the public construction project; and (d) from the victim’s company to October 30 of the same year, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to return the said materials to the victim company on December 23, 2015.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with the request for return of the victim company without any justifiable reason and embezzled total of KRW 2,714,80,000 by holding the victim company as shown in the list of offenses.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the following evidence.

3) In a criminal trial for a party deliberation and judgment, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof has failed to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to, even though the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

arrow