(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.01.16 2014노709 | 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) 전주지방법원 2015.01.16 2014노709

횡령

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant (the fine of KRW 1,500,000) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that “The Prosecutor paid 3.3 million won on July 11, 2012 to E, and then embezzled the above 2.2 million won by using at will around that time,” among the facts charged in the instant case, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that “The attorney fee and stamp fee shall be paid 4.1 million won on July 13, 2012 to E, and the remainder of 1.4 million won shall be consumed at will and embezzled by using at that time at that time.” Since this Court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it, the lower court was no longer able to maintain it.

3. In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal of the defendant, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: “The attorney-at-law shall be paid 3.3 million won on July 11, 2012, and the remaining 2.2 million won was embezzled by using at will around that time the attorney-at-law shall be paid 4.1 million won on July 13, 2012, and the remaining 1.4 million won was consumed at will around that time and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming it.” The summary of the evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “Receipt (Evidence No. 1)” in the summary of the evidence, and it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70 of the Criminal Act for the Detention of Labor House Head.

참조조문

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2014.06.25 2014고정397

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.27 2016고정3778

-대전지방법원 2014.05.30 2014고정522

-부산지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나13744

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.02.10 2013고정477