(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.13 2016노176 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.13 2016노176

업무상횡령

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that there is a difference in the amount equivalent to KRW 1333 million between the amount of clothes supplied and the sales paid to the victim by the defendant, the court below acquitted the defendant of the intention of occupational embezzlement, despite the fact that the defendant could sufficiently conceal the defendant's intention of occupational embezzlement, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional mistake of facts as to the existence of the defendant's intentional embezzlement

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

A. On December 23, 2008, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the victim call doping Co., Ltd., a clothing company, to supply and sell clothing from the injured party; and (b) agreed to deposit the price into the victim “five days” after two months from the sales month; (c) the Defendant paid the clothes to the victim or returned inventory clothing to the victim; and (d) had engaged in the business of keeping and managing clothing owned by the victim for the victim until the Defendant paid the clothes to the victim or returned inventory clothing to the victim.

The defendant, without regularly conducting inventory inspection, is entrusted with keeping and managing clothes to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay the clothes to the victim even though the defendant did not pay the clothes, so that the victim's clothes kept by the defendant were raised in a crypt.

Therefore, the Defendant, from December 208 to July 31, 2014, kept in business for the victim the clothing amounting to KRW 133,617,066, the total market price of the E store in the original city, and the Defendant’s clothes warehouse in the original city F, which was supplied by the injured party in the warehouse in the original city. Around that time, even if sold at the above store site, the Defendant sold the price for the personal use, such as living expenses, debt repayment, etc., in a way that did not register the sales of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

B. It is a single crime that covers judgment on the specific facts charged.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.02.03 2015고단709

-서울서부지방법원 2021.01.21 2020고단2208

-창원지방법원 2020.04.28 2019고단3538

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.10 2018고단1348

-울산지방법원 2018.05.25 2018고단723