logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.09.26 2013노235
업무상배임
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds of appeal revealed that Defendant A gave the documents necessary for the preparation of the Notarial Deed to Defendant B, and at that time, the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) informed the existence and amount of the claim for construction price against the Sungdong Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”). At the time, Defendant B was in a situation where it was urgently necessary to pay a loan from Defendant A even if the continuous demand for payment was made, and it was about 10 days after the execution of the Notarial Deed, and it was requested to seize and order the above claim for construction price and receive the above construction price upon receipt of the decision. In light of these facts, the Defendants drafted a Notarial Deed under the dolus perception that Defendant B would be able to execute the above claim for construction price by using the Notarial Deed. Thus, even if there was no explicit conspiracy between the Defendants, the Defendants conspired to receive the seizure and order for the whole claim.

I would like to say.

In addition, this case constitutes a seizure and assignment order of the victim company's claim for construction price. It is clear that the defendant A made an act of notifying the existence of the claim for the amount of money in addition to the "performance of an obligation" and there was a risk of damage because it was an act of informing the defendant A of the existence of the claim.

Therefore, although the defendants' act constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust, the court below acquitted the defendants as to the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is to run the above company as a director of the victim company.

arrow