(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.17 2015고단1515

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) 대전지방법원 2015.11.17 2015고단1515

업무상횡령

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From December 3, 2011 to September 30, 2014, the Defendant concluded an interim management agreement with the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) at the “E” clothing shop located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and took charge of affairs such as deposit of sales proceeds, sales management, etc.

From July 9, 2014 to September 30, 2014, the Defendant sold the clothing provided by the victimized company to customers and embezzled the total amount of KRW 52,248,600 in cash owned by the victimized company for the victimized company, which he/she had been in the custody of the victimized company, by means of personal consumption, such as living expenses, repayment of loans, etc. around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Protocol of each police statement concerning G;

1. Application of H’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of a selective fine (the actual amount of damage of the victimized company is deemed to significantly fall short of the amount of embezzlement in the judgment; the Defendant also appears to have suffered economic loss in connection with the burial; the Defendant deposited the amount of damage calculated in the name of the Defendant, and the settlement of accounts between the Defendant and the victimized company has not yet been completed) ;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Code of the Labor House Detention Act can be acknowledged that the defendant and his defense counsel did not deposit the money of this case to the damaged company. However, the above money is merely a matter of settling accounts between the defendant and the injured company after the fact that the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful profits, since the above money is the security deposit, home fryer's fee to be paid to the defendant, sales commission to be paid by the defendant, and sales commission to be paid

However, it is illegal acquisition in embezzlement.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.24 2014고합1490

-창원지방법원 2017.10.31 2017나2476

-서울고등법원 2015.11.10 2015노2230

-대전지방법원 2016.11.10 2016고정1111

-대전지방법원 2015.11.24 2014고단3274