logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.06.27 2011고단2883
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) around 15:00 on August 1, 2010, at the victim D and E’s (State) office in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant introduced from the Defendant the J in charge of the selection of construction works and consulting services for the I Park and Housing Development Project, which was scheduled to be implemented at H at the time when the victim G at the time of the strike; (b) while the said state made a verbal agreement with the J in order for the said state to vicariously sell the said housing development project, the contract was delayed because the victim failed to prepare for the amount of KRW 300 million; (c) in order to prevent the victims from exceeding the right to vicariously sell the said contract, the Defendant embezzled the contract by using it for personal purposes at his own discretion during the time when the victim was kept for the victim.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the amount received from the victim of the facts charged of this case is expenses and honorariums received by the defendant, so embezzlement cannot be established.

According to each evidence submitted by the prosecutor, when the defendant received the money of this case from the victim on August 1, 2010, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to pay KRW 300 million with the deposit for the sales agency contract of this case, and that the defendant received the money of this case upon the defendant's request from the victim to request the above part of the above contract.

However, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 300 million of the deposit of the instant parcelling-out agency contract with the J during the period of time in this court, and argued that KRW 100 million was permitted by the J as the Defendant would use for expenses, etc.

In addition, according to the records, E also has some comments from the Defendant on the date of this court's conclusion of the above parcelling-out agency contract with the Defendant as a witness in this court and the Defendant.

arrow