logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노2612
업무상횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendants’ embezzlement of occupational duties around August 22, 2016, the Defendants are not in a position to pay the amount of money of the Union to the extent that the Defendants were found to have been elected through the resolution of the general assembly that was null and void.

In addition, as long as the portion to be borne by the Defendants is separated from the portion to be borne by the partnership, it is difficult to view that the Defendants paid the amount of money to the partnership with the intent to act on behalf of the partnership.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below denied the defendants' intention of unlawful acquisition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In relation to the Defendants’ embezzlement on September 28, 2016, taking into account the contents of E’s writing, contents of attorney appointment contract, etc., the Defendants should be deemed to have paid the attorney’s fee for Defendant A as the amount of the association’s money. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a case where an appellate court intends to re-examine a first instance judgment after re-assessment of a trial, notwithstanding the absence of any objective reason that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial, if it is intended to re-examine the first instance judgment ex post facto, there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstances, it should not be said that the first instance judgment on the acknowledgement of facts was recklessly followed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017).

arrow