logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.07.24 2014노372
횡령등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) The Defendant, by arbitrarily stating that the phrase of this case was deleted, reduced new probative value by altering the content related to the method of determining the profit settlement of the joint project contract, by stating “a decision to delete”, and in civil litigation, there was a perception that the above contents were to be submitted in a modified form of joint project contract, but the purpose was to exercise the altered private document. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the legal principles as to “the purpose of uttering” in the crime of altering documents among the facts charged in this case.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (4 million won of a fine) is excessively uneased and unreasonable.

B. In relation to Defendant 1’s embezzlement, since the Defendant, Victim C, and D agreed to distribute the remaining amount after deducting each party’s own expenses from the sale price after completing the building at the time of the execution of the partnership contract, it cannot be readily concluded that the amount deposited in the passbook under the Defendant’s name belongs to the victims immediately without any express agreement, and thus, the Defendant’s status is not recognized. In relation to the fact of the injury caused by assault, the Defendant was only passive and low in the course of unilaterally being abused from the victim D, and the injury suffered by the victim was directly suffered in the course of assaulting the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending legal principles.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. (1) The lower court’s determination on the embezzlement is as follows: (a) one multi-household house in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do.

arrow