logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.10.06 2014고단1260
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Around June 4, 2012, the summary of the facts charged was the chairperson of the Victim Association established by the Defendant, F, and Defendant’s de facto marriage area G, etc. as its members and engaged in the operation of the said association and the management of property owned by the said association from that time.

On June 7, 2012, the Defendant donated 321 square meters and 5,619 square meters and 5,619 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from F, a director of the said association “H”, as the said association, to the said association, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the said association. The said dry field had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant due to restrictions under the Farmland Act, and kept the said association in custody for business purposes.

On July 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) borrowed 100 million won from the Gannam Livestock Cooperatives, Gannam Livestock Cooperatives; (b) borrowed 20 million won in total from the said Cooperatives as security for the said Association; and (c) used the said site and dry field for personal purposes from October 24, 2012 to October 24, 2012.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant.

(2) In order to establish the crime of occupational embezzlement, a person who keeps another’s property in breach of his/her occupational duty should either embezzled such property or refuse to return such property with the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do9890, Feb. 12, 2009).

The Criminal Code.

arrow