logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.09.22 2019고단2009
횡령
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

(criminal Power) On April 27, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Busan District Court. On July 2, 2018, the enforcement of the above sentence was terminated in the Busan Correctional Institution.

(2) Around October 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) entered into a vehicle lease agreement with the victim Co., Ltd. and the victim Co., Ltd. to lease a motor vehicle with D (34,800,000 won in monthly rent of KRW 650,00 in the market price of the victim Co., Ltd. and the victim Co., Ltd.; (b) from October 30, 2018 to November 1, 2022 at a place where the location cannot be known; and (c) provided a vehicle lease agreement to lease a motor vehicle with the victim for lease from the victim on or around October 30, 2018; and (d) provided a tea shop with a vehicle rent of KRW 6,60,00 in which it is impossible to know the trade name at Chungcheong on or around January 22, 2019 to E, and embezzled it as collateral.

Summary of Evidence

1. A written statement prepared by the defendant in the statement in the second trial records, a written lease contract for a motor vehicle, a certificate of acceptance of a motor vehicle, early cancellation, and a notice of vehicle payment;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records, reply reports (A), investigation reports (104 pages), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the acceptance status of each individual;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 355 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes is that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, and the fact that the vehicle of this case was recovered to the victim company is favorable.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not agree with the victim company, and the vehicle recovery is not a voluntary return of the Defendant, but a compulsory recovery is made by the victim company with the commission company, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crimes, such as embezzlement under the same Act.

In addition to these circumstances, the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

arrow