logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.25 2015노3873
횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. However, there are conditions for sentencing favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant; (b) the Defendant deposited KRW 6.5 million in the name of the Victim Gyeongethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”); and (c) the equity with the case of being adjudicated together with the crime finalized as stated in the first head of the lower judgment.

However, although the amount of damage of the victim company caused by embezzlement of the defendant is equivalent to KRW 132 million as the price determined by the defendant in disposing of the machinery of this case to E, the defendant did not agree with the victim company until it was in the trial, and the circumstances of the crime and crime are defective. The defendant paid KRW 70 million to the victim company. It is difficult to view that the defendant used the machinery of this case and factory of this case from the victim company and paid to the victim company, and the damage caused by the defendant's embezzlement was partly restored to the above amount. The defendant paid KRW 3,482,480 as the monthly rent of the machinery of this case and paid the above rent to the victim company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant purchased the machinery of this case from the victim company, including the above rent paid later, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had decided to purchase the machinery of this case from the victim company. On the contrary, comprehensively taking account of the legal statement of witness G, police protocol, equipment use contract between the defendant and the victim company, there is no consistency between the defendant company and the defendant company.

arrow