logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노4831
횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant concluded a contract on the instant clothing store with the victim D around 201, and then arbitrarily transferred the instant clothing store to KRW 125 million under the condition that the said contract was not terminated, and embezzled without settling the said transfer price.

However, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant agreed to manage clothing stores in the E-building A-dong 201, 202, and 203 commercial buildings under the name of the husband of D when he/she occupied by entering into a lease agreement with the victim D, who was aware of his/her husband around January 201; (b) the Defendant agreed to view the clothing stores as business management; and (c) the lease deposit already paid by D and the sales revenue, etc. were settled in the future.

After all, the Defendant continued to operate the above store with cumulative damage, and paid KRW 43 million exceeding KRW 40 million to D, while it is anticipated that damage equivalent to KRW 100,00,000,000, which was paid by D as a deposit for lease was difficult to claim to D. On January 17, 2013, when transferring the above store to CBTTT, the Defendant received KRW 125,00,000,000,000 from the above company and embezzled it.

B. (1) In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court did not deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not appear to have concluded a club contract on the instant clothing store between the Defendant and D, and was obligated to settle the account for the transfer of the instant clothing store

It does not seem that there was an intention of embezzlement, and it is otherwise recognized.

arrow