logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.09.19 2014노1274
횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months, and imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (M) was the representative of E (hereinafter “E”) and L (hereinafter “L”) and Defendant B was the employee of Defendant A.

(However, Defendant B was the representative in the name of L. Defendant A entered into a contract to transfer E and L to F (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on January 22, 2010.

However, according to the transfer contract of this case, since December 1, 2009, the operation of all offices E and L from December 1, 2009 was agreed to be entrusted by Defendant B, Defendant B was entrusted with the management and operation of the company's funds by taking over the passbook, seal and passwords of the company's funds management by Defendant A from Defendant A after the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case. From that time, Defendant B was exclusively dealt with with the company's funds management and operation, and Defendant B did not have received a report or participated in the company's funds management.

In other words, as in the facts charged in this case, Defendant B used 75 million won for the repayment of obligations, such as public charges of E and L, which he received from Dongnam General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongnam Construction Co., Ltd.”), as in the facts charged in this case, Defendant A was never involved at all.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B (legal scenario) did not perform the obligation to be performed to the Defendants under the instant transfer contract, and did not return the obligation even though he continuously borrowed E and L funds.

In such a situation, even if Defendant B paid 75 million won for the completed portion received from the East-dong case to F, Defendant B shall be liable to pay money between the loan and E and L public charges to be borne by the F according to the instant transfer contract.

arrow