(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.27 2014노4309

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.27 2014노4309

횡령등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant’s embezzlement assertion of mistake of facts is that the F bears the entirely the living cost between the victim F and the victim F, and the Defendant’s transfer of money from the F’s securities account to the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account with the explicit or implied consent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant had the criminal intent of embezzlement.

(2) The Defendant first brought about the visibility of the other branded design, such as the victim I’s clock as described in the facts charged, in exchange for the visibility of the victim I’s other colored design (defluence of the brand) and then brought about the visibility of I’s charge. However, I agreed that I would receive the visibility of other brands (e.g., shocked brand) rather than the visibility stated in the facts charged, and thus, he did not have any intention to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant.

(3) Since the Defendant had the right to dispose of the visibility as stated in the facts charged by I by giving the I a shock camera brand visibility to the I, the Defendant was not guilty of deceiving the Victim K, who is the visual point operator, and did not have the intent to commit fraud when receiving a refund of the above visual price.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim F merely delegated the management of the securities account and the conduct of stock transaction, which deposited KRW 200 million from the investigative agency to the court below, to the court below, and the defendant stated that F did not have consented to it in advance or ex post, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the consent of F as evidence submitted by the defendant in the trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Before committing the instant crime, the F’s money of the said securities account is the same.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.01.17 2013노2895

-부산지방법원 2014.10.29 2014고단7972

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고단4795

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2013고단5945

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.22 2018고정2392