(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.23 2017노104 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.23 2017노104

횡령

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was delegated with the comprehensive authority regarding investment of KRW 300 million from the injured party, and deposited KRW 100 million in the Defendant’s personal account for the benefit of the injured party, and lent it to F. After which the injured party approved, the Defendant confirmed that the lending to F does not go against the intent of the injured party.

Therefore, even though the Defendant did not arbitrarily use KRW 100 million out of the money entrusted by the injured party for any purpose other than the prescribed purpose, the Defendant embezzled the money as an unlawful acquisition intent.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily used KRW 100 million entrusted by the injured party for any purpose other than the prescribed purpose and embezzled it with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion that the judgment below erred by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

1) After confirming whether necessary measures, such as securing collateral for KRW 300 million, have been completed for the Defendant, the victim paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant on May 6, 201, according to the Defendant’s oral statement that it would be possible to send KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, and delivered it to the Defendant.

In light of these developments of the entrustment, the decision of the defendant that the victim was fully different from the decision of the defendant that the victim decided whether to lend D and the amount of loan.

In fact, at the time of entrustment to the defendant, at the time of the entrustment to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the defendant limited its use and delivered the amount of KRW 300,000 to the defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2017.09.26 2017노203

-대법원 2016.07.27 2016도7743

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노2271

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노2743

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1107