(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노1446 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노1446

횡령

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant office fixtures were at the risk of being disposed of by auction, and the victim C was awarded a successful bid by lending 7 million won from E through the Defendant.

However, the victim C did not pay the above seven million won to E, and E urged the payment thereof, and the defendant urged the victim C to pay it. The victim C would dispose of the office equipment of this case if it is not paid even after two months from April 201.

Therefore, the crime of embezzlement is not established by disposing of the office fixtures of this case with the consent of the victim C.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant did not obtain prior consent from the victim C, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

1) The victim C consistently states that there is no sufficient consent from the investigative agency to take the instant office fixtures from the court below to the court below. (2) The Defendant initially was investigated by the police on August 24, 2012, and was from the police officer to investigate the details of the victim C’s complaint (Evidence No. 273), and the Defendant was asked to appear and make statements on this part, and on September 7, 2012, the Defendant was subject to this part of investigation by the police on this part. However, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently confirmed the facts prior to this part of investigation and conducted the investigation.

However, even though the issue of prior consent of the victim C is the core issue of the instant case, the Defendant did not at all assert that he/she obtained prior consent from the victim C after being investigated by the police on September 7, 2012 (Evidence Records 330-33 pages).

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.05.30 2014고정13

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.07 2016노1924

-수원고등법원 2020.01.09 2019노469

-수원지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노2265

-의정부지방법원 2013.12.06 2013노1488