logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.03.16 2014노672
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, and imprisonment for two years, respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (Defendant A) (1) led to the confession of the facts charged in the course of the prosecutor's investigation into the prosecution, the forgery of each private document, and the uttering of each falsified document. In light of the background of confession and the existence of the contents thereof, etc., the credibility of the confession can be fully acknowledged. Although such confession is supported by relevant evidence, such as the witness's statement in the court of the court of original instance, the court below acquitted the above facts charged on the grounds of witness R and Q's statement in the court of original instance, etc.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is too unfilled and unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for five years and two years sentenced to Defendant B, which the lower court sentenced to Defendant A, are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that Defendant A’s receipt of a loan by using Q’s seal was a result of the lawful holder’s delegation by the lawful holder of the right, on the following grounds: (a) although there was a loan of KRW 100 million in aggregate by taking account of the following facts: (b) Q’s mother, who actually managed Q’s account, received a loan of Q as security from R to the Plaintiff’s account; and (c) it merely received a loan from Q’s mother who received a loan from Q as security to the Plaintiff’s account; and (d) it was merely a process upon the request from Q to transfer it to the Plaintiff’s account.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below stated that "a) Defendant A, at the time of two-time interrogations by the prosecution, entered the relevant loan application in Q Q’s name and Q’s name in the loan transaction agreement, and affixed the seal without permission," and item (b).

arrow