(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노3466 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노3466

횡령

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

[Judgment on the grounds of appeal] The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant was sub-leaseed to a third party with the consent of G and did not dispose of the remainder except H-BEM 40 tons among the lectures for construction works listed in No. 1 or No. 20 of the judgment below attached to the judgment below, which the Defendant leased from the victim G.

The above goods, such as one container No. 21 listed in the list of crimes (hereinafter “instant goods”), which the defendant kept upon the request of the victim, are not disposed of by the defendant. The victim left to the first patrol force on October 2010, and did not dispose of the goods.

(M) The sentencing of the court below (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, there is a need for the prosecutor to prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition with respect to the remainder of the articles No. 1 and No. 2 of this case excluding one container among the articles of this case 1 and No. 2 of this case excluding one of the articles of this case 1 and the container 2 of this case. The evidence should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which causes a judge to have no reasonable doubt

Even if it is insufficient to determine the interest of the defendant as the interest of the defendant, but if there are insufficient materials to recognize that the defendant used the money in his/her own custody, such as not explaining his/her whereabouts or location, or disclosing that the money used in the place of use claimed by the defendant was appropriated for other funds, it may be deemed that the defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition in case where there are more reliable materials to acknowledge that the defendant used it for personal purposes.

Supreme Court Decision 200Da3448 delivered on March 14, 200

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고정2226

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.08.26 2014고정144

-광주지방법원 2015.04.28 2014노921

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.27 2015노12

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018노2044