logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2015고단1702
횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 31, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the structural construction of the 4-story new building constructed in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Seoul, with C.

On December 31, 2013, the Defendant was indicted by specifying the market price of the victim E as “one ton of the iron bars of approximately KRW 750,000 km in the market price,” and the indictment was changed to “55 km in the market price,” and the indictment was changed to “30 km in the iron bars.” As the market price equivalent to one ton of the iron bars cannot be maintained due to the foregoing changes in indictment, and the market price was not specified while changing indictment, it is determined to specify the facts charged by reducing it to “300 km in the market price,” and even if so specified, it is determined that there is no disadvantage to the Defendant’s defense right.

During the custody of B for the victim, he/she arbitrarily disposed of on his/her own property and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the fourth protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement made by C of a witness in the fifth trial record;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the C’s statement);

1. Part of the police statement concerning C;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the standard general contract for construction works, investigation report ( telephone survey) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant sold the steel bars owned by the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) without the owner’s permission, but the said steel bars are used at the construction site and cannot be used by the Corporation. As such, the said steel bars are disposed of to the extent that they cannot be used by the Corporation.

arrow