logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.02.13 2013도11927
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable to find the lower court guilty of each of the embezzlement charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the value of stocks, the acquisition of securities, the presumption of rights in the list of stockholders, and the intention of unlawful acquisition, etc., without properly conducting necessary deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the violation of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and repealed by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act of Feb. 4, 2009), the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justified. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to commit deception and deception, and it is reasonable to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not properly conduct necessary deliberation and did not violate logical and empirical rules.

arrow