logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.18 2014노7766
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In the event that the Defendant is an employee who is in charge of the delivery of milk at the “C agency” located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu, and receives the milk payment from the customer who pays the milk in cash, not through land or account transfer, only the remainder after deducting the delivery fee that the Defendant should receive from the said agency shall be deposited into the said agency.

However, in the above process, it is nothing more than a failure to deposit the milk price to the said agency due to the urgent need for money, such as undergoing an operation to cut off in three times.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant paid the above agency KRW 200,000 on October 6, 2014, and KRW 100,000 on December 5, 2014, and partial recovery of damage was made by the Defendant, and that economic circumstances are difficult due to the Defendant’s failure to deliver milk from July 2013, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced KRW 3,000,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement in determining a mistake of facts refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her occupational duty, such as his/her own property, with the aim of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

Even if there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do214 delivered on December 8, 2000, etc.) In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant embezzled total sum of KRW 7,510,945 that the Defendant kept on duty for the said agency as stated in the facts charged.

arrow