(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.07.16 2014노544 | 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) 창원지방법원 2014.07.16 2014노544

횡령

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

3. The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal and the Defendant and E concluded a contract with the victim F to sell the land D and the fourth commercial building (hereinafter “instant real estate”). At that time, the victim entered into a special agreement to bear value-added tax. According to the said special agreement, the victim paid the Defendant the money in the name of value-added tax, separate from the purchase price of the instant real estate, thereby recognizing the Defendant’s status as custodian.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor additionally applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that “The defendant sold the above real estate to F on May 21, 2012 under the condition that F, the purchaser of the value-added tax on the above real estate was paid, while he jointly owned the land D and 4th floor building at Changwon-si window, and the above real estate was sold to F. The defendant was issued from F on August 10, 2012 under the pretext of the payment of value-added tax on the above real estate transaction, and the prosecutor stated F in F in the ancillary charge of the written application for changes in the indictment, but it is obvious that “the victim was changed to E in preliminary manner.” While being kept in custody for E, from that time, the defendant used the above money for personal purposes, such as the Defendant’s insurance premium and electricity fee, etc., from that time until September 24, 2012, and this court was no longer subject to the judgment below’s change.

On the other hand, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts as to the primary facts of this case is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. The facts charged

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.02.21 2013고단3243

-창원지방법원 2015.02.04 2014노1581

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2014.07.09 2013노383

-인천지방법원 2013.08.22 2012노3875

-창원지방법원 2020.05.22 2019노2517