logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.23 2014노1653
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (four years of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was not aware of the content of a stock security loan by taking charge of actual stock management only in accordance with the orders of Defendant A, etc., who was in exclusive charge of the business related to the Liet victim or the stock security loan. Although Defendant A’s signature and seal on July 8, 2010 on a written agreement for the loan of stock security loan was made on the victim’s agent, it is merely merely based on the victim’s instructions in the absence of Defendant A’s awareness of the intent of unlawful acquisition, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had the intent of joint processing for the crime of embezzlement, or did not have shared the act of execution. 2) The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B is too unreasonable

2. Determination

A. Defendant B asserted that the lower court had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected Defendant B’s assertion on the ground that, in full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, even if Defendant B did not have a direct intent with Defendant A, it can be deemed that there was an implied intent for the embezzlement of caution 920,000 shares, and that Defendant B’s preparation of a written agreement for each share security loan as of July 8, 2010 can be evaluated as a share share share share share share as an essential act for the embezzlement of 920,000 shares, and found Defendant B guilty of the instant facts charged against Defendant B.

It is recognized that the above judgment of the court below is just after comparing it with the records, and it is erroneous of the facts as alleged by the defendant B.

arrow