(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.17 2016노1035 | 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) 인천지방법원 2016.08.17 2016노1035

업무상횡령

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The part which was found guilty in the lower court’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the part which was found guilty (17,167,635 won) was also the criminal intent of embezzlement and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.

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

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles [the part of innocence (132,381,250 won embezzlement) of the judgment of the court below] Defendant used the above money to repay the victim’s debt without any prior notification to the victim D. The creditor is not the defendant’s private relationship, and it is difficult to view this part of the money as being used for the victim’s interest, and there is an intention of unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this part, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as the Defendant’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition of this part of the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence

A) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

① Upon the Defendant’s request, G transferred KRW 100 million to the account of the victim’s wife around 2008. From around that time to December 1, 201, the victim transferred KRW 200,000 per month to G account from that time to December 1, 201.

② G appears as a witness in the court of original instance and “The defendant lends money to the victim who is held responsible.”

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.06 2018노724

-대구지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노698

-대구고등법원 2017.06.29 2017노41

-서울남부지방법원 2016.02.17 2015노1166

-대전지방법원 2018.02.01 2016노3587