logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.30 2016노2059
업무상배임
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) provides that the articles of association of the instant association shall not pay remuneration to executive officers other than the standing executive officers, and the Administrative Business Regulations provide that "the standing executive officers shall not engage in a business for profit-making and directly requiring attendance at work or engage in a business." Thus, where the defendant, a standing executive officer, becomes unable to perform his/her duty of holding concurrent office due to the business of a single council member, the president of the instant association has the duty of not receiving remuneration for himself/herself

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not recognize such duties and found the Defendant not guilty.

2. The lower court determined that, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to refrain from paying remuneration as a matter of course solely on the ground that the instant evidence alone did not work as the head of the association or was concurrently in office.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, Article 80(1) of the Business Regulations of the instant Union (amended before September 2015), which is, the following circumstances recognized by the lower court, shall be paid monthly salary to the head of the instant association, full-time executives, office employees, and technical employees.

In addition to the fact that the president of the partnership naturally receives a salary as a matter of course as long as he/she serves as his/her position, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are errors as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow