(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015노5610 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015노5610

업무상횡령

Text

The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

. Prosecutors;

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of KRW 96,226,06,00 paid out of the insurance premium, etc. under the name of the defendant, which was found guilty by the court below, the defendant used for the embezzlement crime.

Considering the fact that both the Defendant’s name and the passbook in the name of G are those stored and used in the company, and that the Defendant’s personal use is not the passbook, but the money paid through the above passbook is used for the purpose of welfare expenses, rather than for the Defendant’s own use, with K, etc., and that K actually operated and controlled the victim’s company as a major shareholder with 66.5% equity interest, and the Defendant is merely merely for the provision of funds in accordance with the K’s decision and instruction, and that the Defendant paid K’s insurance premiums and credit card bills at another company of the Defendant and K at another company of the same company, at the request of K in an equitable manner, is an insurance policy equivalent to the amount corresponding to the Defendant and the complainant’s share, and the insurance premium is paid, the Defendant is not recognized as an unlawful acquisition intent.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the embezzlement of KRW 150,000,000 with maturity of insurance (1) 100,000,000, K’s statement, etc., the Defendant can be deemed to have expressed his intent of unlawful acquisition of another’s property, as his own property, by transferring the said money to an account of a fixed deposit in his/her name.

2) As to embezzlement of KRW 3640 million for repair costs conspired with D, according to R’s statement, etc., the Defendant was unaware of the Defendant’s embezzlement of approximately 6 years.

It is difficult to see that there is a public contest with D.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the above part.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2016노1056

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노1176

-수원지방법원 2018.03.23 2017노8079

-대법원 2017.05.17 2017도3393

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.28 2017노854