logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.19 2015노1453
배임수재
Text

The judgment below

Of the judgments of the court below, the following is excluded from the amount of 1 re-misappropriation of the attached list of crimes (2) which is attached to the judgment below.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of legal principles; 1) misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court, without considering the following points, convicted Defendant of each violation of trust in attached Form 1 (1). This is a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

① It is rather reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s financial position has deteriorated as the basis of the borrowed money.

The defendant and the decision of the court below are as follows: (1) A list of crimes in attached Form 1, (2) a list of crimes in attached Form 2, and the defendant did not prepare a loan certificate or enter into an agreement on the interest and the due date for payment because the defendant has a close relation and the amount borrowed is a small amount.

F, K, G, etc. lent money to the defendant

statement is made.

(2) There is no reason to distinguish between the portion repaid by the defendant and the portion repaid by the defendant.

There is no difference between (1) 1) 2) 2) 3 (2) 3) 3 as indicated in the judgment below and 3) 3) 3.

③ There was no illegal solicitation between the Defendant and each purchaser of the attached list of crimes (1) which was attached to the judgment of the court below.

There is no ground to view that there is a difference between (1) each property in breach of trust and (2) each property in breach of trust in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court below in relation to illegal solicitation.

(4) No disadvantage shall be given to the selection of a securities company due to the provision of money.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of the charge of taking advantage of each of the breach of trust listed in the annexed list of crimes (2) in the lower judgment without considering the following facts, which misleads the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

① An explicit statement between the Defendant and each evidence of the crimes set forth in attached Table 2 of the lower judgment.

arrow