logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2016노23
배임수재
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below rendered a verdict of innocence against the Defendants, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is the head of the foregoing funeral management office (representative G) entrusted with the operation and management of the funeral funeral service of the medical corporation located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and Defendant B is the head of the foregoing funeral service management office (representative G), and Defendant B is engaged in various services related to funeral events, such as counseling on funeral procedures, care in person, confirmation of burial or cremation, and cremation, etc. with respect to the bereaved families who hold funeral events in the above funeral service (such as resident registration, etc.). Furthermore, each of the above services was rendered to provide services related to funeral events, such as arranging and guiding the funeral service to the bereaved families without land, or arranging and guiding the funeral service to the bereaved families, or arranging and providing services to the business operators, arranging and providing services to the business operators, allocating and providing services to the staff, taking care of the funeral room, the entrance goods, food and the funeral service and the funeral service.

Although the Defendants received illegal solicitation or received money or valuables in return in the course of performing all affairs related to the funeral events, such as the selection (Recommendation) and introduction and mediation of a business operator who will provide counseling for bereaved family members, the Defendants would provide 75% of the sales commission (40% of the sales commission) received from the funeral facility as a result of the counseling for the funeral, and 75% of the sales commission (or 40% of the sales price) received from the funeral facility, from the Ha on August 2009, 2009, the head counseling business operator, and from the J of the director of the I in the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., the same business operator in March 2013, to the bereaved family members who take exclusive charge of the funeral event in each of the above hospitals.

“.......”

arrow