logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노908
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [2016 High 908 cases, the document submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be deemed to the extent of supplementing the grounds for appeal] Defendant did not receive money from the injured party as a design cost and supervision cost. However, the Defendant agreed to pay the above design cost in a lump sum including the total construction cost.

The defendant was paid as design expenses and supervision expenses on the receipts prepared by the victim.

The statement is only to clarify the details or amount of money included in the construction cost.

Since the injured party fails to pay the construction cost in full, the defendant paid the above money for construction cost, the defendant's use of the money for construction cost without paying the supervision cost does not constitute embezzlement.

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

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s victim on October 2, 2014

9. The Defendant prepared a receipt to verify that the Defendant was paid 8.4 million won for design and supervision costs, including KRW 5 million paid and KRW 3.4 million paid on October 2 of the same year. ② The Defendant paid only KRW 3,144,600 out of KRW 8.4 million paid by the injured party for design and supervision costs at the architectural design office as design cost, and the Defendant did not pay supervision costs, and it appears that the injured party would have again paid KRW 5,25,400 to the architectural design office. ③ In full view of the fact that the Defendant would have not obtained consent from the injured party regarding the use of the amount equivalent to the above supervision costs for other purposes, the Defendant would have used the amount equivalent to the above supervision costs for design and supervision costs as stated in this part of the charges.

arrow