logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2014.12.17 2014노276
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

Defendant

The facts charged against A and the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) shall be paid only to the victim company in charge of the settlement of wastewater handled by the victim company (hereinafter referred to as “victim company”) regardless of the transaction company, and even if the defendant company should pay the funds received from the wastewater discharge company to the victim company, it shall be paid after undergoing the settlement procedure between the defendant company and the victim company. The amount equivalent to the “amount to be paid to the complainant” in the attached list of crimes [the amount to be paid to the victim is deemed to be a clerical error in the (main) environment; hereinafter the same shall apply] is not determined as the amount to be paid to the victim company or the amount to be paid by the defendant company to the victim company. Thus, even if the defendant company or the defendant did not pay the wastewater treatment expenses to be paid to the victim among the amount received from the wastewater discharge company, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement).

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair. (2) Defendant B’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the indictment is as follows: “Defendant A is the representative director of the Defendant company running the equipment leasing business in the Jinju City F and 201; and Defendant B is the Defendants of the Defendant company.

arrow