(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014노2200

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014노2200

횡령

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the two pages overlap in the defendant's warehouse for mistake of facts have been left in part, the amount should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement. The defendant returned 40 million won to the damaged company, and since the defendant supplied the goods to the restaurant operated by the wife of E, the complainant, and was not paid 20 million won, the amount equivalent to the above should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement, the court below erred in recognizing the amount of embezzlement, reflecting these circumstances, thereby failing to deduct it from the amount of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of “28,000 kg for the second instance” in the facts charged as “24,865.03 kg for the second instance,” and “151,700,000 g for the second instance” in the facts charged as “136,025,150 g for the second instance,” respectively, and the lower court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it. As such, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal.

Even if the defendant contests the amount of embezzlement, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so we will review below.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, from October 20, 201 to October 21, 2012 when the police investigation was conducted, the Defendant stated that he voluntarily disposed of KRW 5,000 g and 3,000 g for each of the trade parties, F, etc., of KRW 1 gg per 1 g, 28,000 and KRW 3,900, which were owned by the victimized company in the freezing warehouse B from around October 20, 201 to around the 21st of the same month. The Defendant provided that the Defendant had the son’s custody of the son B, which was the victim, even though he had the son’s custody of the son B.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.10.22 2013고단1586

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.12 2017고단2144

-서울북부지방법원 2016.04.06 2015고단4589

-대구지방법원 2013.10.23 2013고정2302

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.08 2015고단3108