(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.24 2015노888 | 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) 청주지방법원 2016.06.24 2015노888

횡령

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On October 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a request from a D agency operated by the Defendant in Chungcheong City (hereinafter “Defendant”); (b) to sell and request a Track Track Track Track Ba from the Victim E; and (c) promised to sell and sell the Track Ba at a value of 16 million won.

Around November 7, 2013, the Defendant sold the Trackor in KRW 14.5 million and kept the above sales proceeds for the victim, and around that time, the Defendant arbitrarily used the above sales proceeds as a fund for business operation, such as repayment of debts to F, in the vicinity of the Chungcheongnam-si.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below

A. (1) The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: the Defendant: the Defendant, upon the request of the injured party, received the consignment from the injured party and received the consignment transfer of the injured party, instead of being delivered with the bitd in lieu of the purchase price of the victim's small skid (skid).

In this process, the defendant and the victim agreed to cover the purchase price of the ckid's ckid's cream in the process of returning small ckid's ckid's ckid's ckid's ckid's ckid's.

In addition, when the victim becomes aware that he was designated as a person eligible for subsidization in the next year (2014), the victim demanded the defendant to return the sales proceeds of the skiingd's large amount of Skid's sales proceeds, that the government should pay only the person who was paid the subsidy to the defendant when the subsidy is paid.

In the end, since the defendant is not handed over a track for consignment sale from the injured party, it is not the crime of embezzlement against the injured party because the sales proceeds are not owned by the injured party.

It was for the consignment sale that the defendant received a Trackter from the injured party.

However, there was a separate agreement to cover the sales proceeds with small skiings.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2015.07.17 2015고단91

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.02.20 2015고단842

-청주지방법원 2013.10.18 2013노623

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2019.01.31 2018고단467

-전주지방법원 2018.10.31 2018고단1093