logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.28 2019노22
업무상배임등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Workers B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, N,O, P, the lower court dismissed the prosecution, and convicted the Defendant on the charge of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged against the Defendant, each fraud, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Workers AC.

The defendant and the prosecutor appealed only the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, and since the dismissal of the above prosecution is finalized, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty part of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as the ownership of a vehicle entering into a misunderstanding of legal principles (in a case of occupational breach of trust) belongs to a branch company, the victim Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”).

(i) the vehicle that entered the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”)

The ownership of R is owned by R. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, the representative of R, was in the position of a person who administers another’s business with respect to the instant vehicle, and the act of creating a collateral security on the instant vehicle and obtaining a loan from a financial institution is merely an act of disposal as the owner of the instant vehicle and does not constitute an occupational breach of trust. Therefore, on the premise that the Defendant is in the position of a person who administers another’s business, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so doing, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of occupational breach of trust against the Defendant, on the premise that the Defendant was in the position of a person who administers another’s business, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine (each fraud) concerning the mistake of the Defendant’s fraud against the victim

arrow