logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.09 2019고단1971
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment with prison labor for five months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who works as the head of the D Welfare Center in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around 2006 to February 2018, and was in charge of the duties of the welfare center, such as accounting affairs. Defendant B works as the head of the above welfare center from around 2006 to March 2018 and was in charge of the budget management, personnel affairs, etc. of the welfare center.

The above welfare center is established for the purpose of social welfare business, etc. on July 1, 1997 in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is a victim, and is entrusted to the E Foundation and operated as a government subsidy and a transfer from the foundation.

The Defendants entered into an entrusted operation agreement with the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on the condition that the above foundation deposits 50 million won to the above welfare center each year, and the amount of KRW 50 million paid from the foundation to the foundation was to be created through the Defendants through the management support team. However, since June 2015, it is difficult to create the corporate transfer money due to the financial difficulties of the F from around June 2015, in order to continuously maintain the Defendants’ status and position within the welfare center through the continuation of the entrusted operation agreement as above, the above entrusted operation agreement was made, and some of them were paid to the foundation through the foundation, the payment of KRW 400 to 5 million each month was made through the foundation, and the rest of the amount was publicly offered by the Defendants for the personal purpose of living expenses including the Defendant.

Accordingly, Defendant B kept the government subsidy received from the victim as the operating expenses of the welfare center around June 2015 in accordance with the direction of Defendant A, on the part of the victim.

arrow