logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.01 2015노1976
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows.

As to the part of the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), H, K, Q, and R have consistently stated the annual salary agreement with the Defendants as to whether the annual salary is KRW 50 million or not, and the circumstances leading up thereto, L and I consistently stated in the investigation agency about the Defendants’ annual salary amounting to KRW 50 million. In full view of the following, L and I’s statement in the original judgment that reversed the former statement was made after L and I had a dispute over the business opinion with H, and thus, it is difficult to believe that L and I was made after cooperation in restoring the management right of the Defendants, the fact of the annual salary amounting to KRW 50 million may be fully recognized.

In full view of the fact that the Defendants violated the annual salary of KRW 50 million and attempted to establish a ground for the payment of wages and bonuses at a general meeting of shareholders on March 22, 2010, and the fact that the Defendants received remuneration without undergoing a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the remuneration of directors, considering that the Defendants’ act of withdrawing this portion of the money for the remuneration of the Defendants constitutes embezzlement, constitutes embezzlement, and the crime of embezzlement and the intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized.

The amount of money that the Defendants withdrawn under the pretext of half-yearly withdrawals is actually investment in the amount agreed by the Defendants to invest each KRW 500-70 million in order to jointly establish H and victimized company, and only in the accounts, the amount was managed by the Defendants. As such, the Defendants are merely investment in the amount that the Defendants agreed to invest each KRW 500-70 million in order to jointly establish H and victimized company.

arrow