(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.16 2015노5080 | 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 2016.06.16 2015노5080

업무상횡령

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

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

except that from the date of this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defense counsel’s written opinion submitted after the lapse of the period for filing the Defendant’s appeal is considered only to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal.

The defense counsel's written opinion states that the facts charged of this case are comprehensively written without separating the victim AT and the victim F, but it is not mentioned in the grounds of appeal or the petition of appeal. The facts charged of this case are stated in the reasoning of appeal or the petition of appeal. The time, method of crime, the victim, the frequency of crime, the amount of damage, etc. of each of the facts charged of this case, and even according to other expressions, it is limited to the object of the trial, and eventually there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of his defense right. In addition, both AT and F are deemed to be the same company as the actual operator, and therefore, the facts charged of this case are not specified.

shall not be deemed to exist.

1) Although a misunderstanding of facts or legal principles did not prove that the Defendant consumed the money as an intention of unlawful acquisition by using it for personal purposes, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - Fact-misunderstanding 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the occupational embezzlement, even though the Defendant received 435,000 won and 350,000 won from the Z around August 10, 2009, which was deposited by the business partner of F Co., Ltd., the Defendant around August 10, 2009, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, on the charge of occupational embezzlement (the part of innocence) on the daily list of crimes (1) 72,73 times more than 72, and 733, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

2) On the net 78,80 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below (1).

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.09.14 2016노7940

-대구지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노146

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2017노1922

-서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017노431

-전주지방법원 2016.07.21 2015노1506