beta
Text
Defendant
A. Defendant B shall be acquitted. The summary of the acquittal part in this judgment shall be published.
Reasons
1. The injured party C is a person running E Co., Ltd. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.” in the name of the company). Defendant A is a representative attorney-at-law of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Law Firm G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) and was working as a adviser-at-law of the company run by C. Defendant B was a person who introduced C from the branch around October 2007 and was in internal relations with C.
Defendant
A around February 2, 2008, upon request of C to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money (hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”) against the non-H association and one other. On May 19, 2009, the judgment of winning C became final and conclusive, and upon withdrawal of KRW 570,534,000 on behalf of C, the deposit amount of KRW 50 million and interest of KRW 870,534 was paid out on behalf of C. At the time of Defendant B’s management of the I Bank Account (J) in the name of C, Defendant B received the deposit and interest of the deposit money from the account in the name of C and conspired to use them at will.
According to the above public offering on May 21, 2009, the Defendants requested the Seoul Central District Court to withdraw KRW 500,870,534 in total of the above deposit and interest (hereinafter “instant deposit”). On the same day, the Defendants received deposit money in the name of C and kept it for C, and then withdrawn all of the above money on the same day, and used it voluntarily as the operating expenses of Defendant B’s company at around that time.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim C’s 500,870,534 won.
2. The gist of the Defendants’ lawsuit
A. Defendant A obtained the consent or approval of C as to the advance payment of the instant deposit and use it as operating funds, etc. of the K Stock Company, the representative director of which was the representative director.
I think that B cooperates in the withdrawal of the deposit, and there was no conspiracy with B to use the deposit of this case voluntarily by withdrawing the deposit of this case, and there was no intention of illegal acquisition.
(b).