logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.05.22 2014고단1833
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

From around 2002 to December 2006, A and Defendant B participated in the Gyeongcheon-si Apartment Corporation, and Defendant B took charge of electrical construction, and Defendant B did not receive the construction cost, they exercised the right of retention on the above apartment complex with other creditors, and Defendant A exercised the right of retention on April 18, 2013, and Defendant B has been in charge of the right of retention and the right of retention.

On March 20, 2013, the Defendants were exercising the right of retention and controlled access by exercising the right of retention on the said apartment in the name of the claim group.

On April 18, 2013, at around 14:00, the Defendants entered the victim's side and met or from the victim's side to construct the remaining construction, safety diagnosis, and sampling fright building by entering the said apartment house, but the possession of the lien holders is not lost. In the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the lien, the Defendants prepared a written agreement that they would not claim it as the loss of possession, and delivered KRW 100 million from the victim as the security deposit for the above agreement, and the above money is reverted to the claim group if the victim lost in the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the lien. In case of the victim's winning, the Defendants decided to return it to the victim.

As a result, while the Defendants kept 100 million won, they lost in the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the above lien around May 23, 2013, and thus, the above 100 million won should be returned to the victims, but the Defendants used 80 million won by Defendant A and 20 million won by Defendant B at their own discretion and embezzled them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Copies of the written agreement;

1. Certificate of contents;

arrow