logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.02.05 2017노445
업무상횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) consented to the Defendant’s management of basic living cost, etc. to use it as D’s operating cost.

Therefore, the Defendant used the above money as operating expenses of D.

embezzlement of another person's property;

and at least there was no intention to obtain illegal information from the defendant.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the president of “D” (hereinafter “C”) who is a sanatorium for individual persons with disabilities in the Guluri City.

On November 28, 2006, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim E, who is a disabled person of class 1 with interest on the basic recipient, to have the victim take care of and manage the victim in the sanatorium of this case, and to use all of the subsidies equivalent to KRW 450,000,00, such as basic living cost, disability allowance, etc. to be paid monthly to the victim in the old viewing as the residence and food expenses of the victim.

After that, the victim was hospitalized at the G hospital from March 30, 2010 to April 30, 201, from May 3, 2010 to August 19, 201, from the H hospital from October 5, 2010 to November 4, 2010, from the I hospital from November 9, 2010 to December 20, 201, from the I hospital from December 20, 201 to the I Hospital from January 20, 201, from the H hospital from February 1, 201 to April 20, 201 to the Gu University from February 3, 201 to the date on which the victim was hospitalized from the Gu University from the date on which the victim was hospitalized until December 23, 2012 to the date on which the victim was hospitalized.

From March 30, 2010 to July 8, 2013, the Defendant embezzled KRW 14,130,681 out of subsidies 18,56,081 paid to the victim from old viewing during the period of hospitalized treatment at H hospitals, etc. as seen above, using subsidies granted to the victim for personal purposes.

3. The lower court determined that subsidies paid to the victim should be used for the victim as the owner of the victim, and the hospital expenses, etc. exempted from payment according to a sisterhood alliance with the hospital should also be disbursed for the victim, and the instant case.

arrow