logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.10.27 2016노528
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts received one million won from D Co., Ltd. in advance of the payment of the construction price, and the defendant is not subject to the name of village support fund, and thus the status of the custodian of embezzlement cannot be recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justified and there is no error of law of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit. Eul makes a statement that the amount of one million won paid by the D Co., Ltd. to the defendant at the investigative agency and the court of original instance is not different from the request that the time for payment should be advanced.

The statement of E is that ① the Defendant requested D Co., Ltd. to pay KRW 1 million a village conference support payment through the general manager at the construction site, and the Defendant visited D Co., Ltd.’s office and entered the Defendant’s account number, and the support payment was later made under the name of D Co., Ltd. at the village conference at the end, and the statement was consistent until the investigation agency and the court of the court below specifically and in relation to the reason for the payment of money, etc., and ② the amount paid by D Co., Ltd. in return for a solicitation to request the Defendant to pay the construction price to the Defendant, the Defendant was a law in cash at the place where the Defendant visited the office. The instant money was D.

arrow