(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고단2739

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) 광주지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고단2739

횡령

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) around November 15, 2016, the Defendant: (b) around November 15, 2016; (c) “The head office of the National Bank; and (d) the head office of the Maspbook may be issued; and (c) when the limit is raised, the Defendant may immediately obtain a loan from other financial institutions and pay the loan to the head office of the

“If a person receives a loan and then transfers it to the designated account by us, he/she would immediately repay it.” On November 21, 2016, 2016, he/she knowingly known that KRW 19 million, which was transferred to the Saemaul Treasury Account (D) in the name of the Defendant, was a gold deposited through Bosing, then he/she transferred KRW 5 million out of the same day to the New Bank Account (E) in the name of the Defendant, and embezzled it.

2. Determination

A. Inasmuch as custody in the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property based on the consignment relationship, in order to constitute the crime of embezzlement, there should be legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian, owner, or other principal right holder of the property.

An entrusted trust relationship can be acknowledged not only by a contract such as the delegation of the lease for use, but also by the management of affairs, custom, cooking, good faith, etc.

B. According to the facts charged, C was aware that the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was belonging to the “Sishing” of a person without a name, thereby remitting KRW 19 million to the Defendant’s account.

In such a case, even if based on any of the grounds, there is no room to deem that a fiduciary relationship exists between C and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a person who keeps custody of KRW 19 million.

3. Conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered on the basis of the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the purport of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced based on the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act as the defendant does not want public notice of

참조조문

-형법 제58조 제2항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.01.10 2017노3941

-광주지방법원 2017.11.03 2017고단136

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.22 2020고단5137

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.19 2018고단1655

-수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2018고단2422