logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.01.14 2019고정1053
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated a bath C in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government B, and the victim D is a person who operated (ju) E.

Around October 28, 2014, the Defendant agreed to purchase one electric boiler equivalent to KRW 13.5 million at the above C bath and concluded an agreement on the ownership deposit sales agreement with the victim to transfer ownership if the Defendant completely pays the price of goods. The Defendant paid the down payment KRW 500,000 won on the same day, around November 11, 2014, and KRW 1.3 million to the victim, he/she received the possession of the boiler from the victim around that time. On December 2016, the Defendant got the victim transferred the said boiler possession to another person, but did not sell the said boiler, and thus was returned the said boiler from the victim and kept it in the said C bath.

Around May 2018, the Defendant, who kept the said boiler on behalf of the victim, embezzled the victim’s property by allowing FF to sell the said boiler on the water surface at his/her own discretion for KRW 2.70,000.

2. In light of the following: (a) the witness G testified that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant testified to F that the instant boiler would not bring the victim’s goods to F; (b) the Defendant was at the time of the instant case’s payment of a large amount of compensation for redevelopment; (c) the instant boiler was left unattended for a long time due to the lack of performance; and (d) the disposal cost of the boiler was small amount, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant embezzled the instant boiler by having the F dispose of the boiler with the intent of embezzlement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of

arrow