logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.02.11 2014고단1865
업무상횡령
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From May 1, 2002 to November 30, 2013, the Defendant is a member of the Han Pung-gu Limited Company (hereinafter “victim Company”) who was engaged in the sales of drugs and the collection of such drugs.

1. On October 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) placed an order for medicine equivalent to 46,750 won at the market price, such as the noise and x call, which was placed in Mayang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s Seoul Fyeast-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s place of business as ordered by the victim company; (b) sold the medicine from the victim company and kept it for business purposes; and (c) arbitrarily used the medicine for living expenses, etc. from around that time to October 16, 2013, the Defendant disposed of and embezzled the medicine more than 44 times in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table 1 (pharmaceutical Embezzlement) and embezzled by disposing of the medicine in total amounting to 11,347,655 won.

2. Around December 10, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 4,50,000,000 as the sum of drug proceeds collected from five pharmacies during seven times, as indicated in the attached Table 2 (Embezzlement of veterinary Amount) from around that time, while he/she was voluntarily consumed as living expenses, etc. for the victim in the course of performing his/her duties, at G pharmacy located in F of the Chungcheongnam-gun Budget Group, and he/she embezzled the sum of the drug proceeds collected from five pharmacies during seven times as daily living expenses, etc.

3. Around February 2014, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s company’s business embezzlement, on the grounds that the Defendant was requested from the victim company for the return of 23 pharmacies listed in the attached Table 3, such as Hharmagle 3, which was a customer who was in the custody of the victim company on behalf of the victim company, without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of the I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to respective certificates of revenues and balance;

1. Criminal facts;

arrow