logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2013.04.18 2012고단560
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. A summary of the facts charged: (a) around April 6, 2011, the Defendant purchased at the D coffee shop located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-si, the play equipment called “pointping day” from the victim E to purchase KRW 50 million on the same day; (b) paid the remainder KRW 45 million until April 5, 2012; (c) concluded a contract to pay KRW 1.2 million monthly rent from April 6, 201 to April 5, 2012; and (d) paid the down payment of KRW 5 million on the day.

However, when it was difficult for the Defendant to pay the remainder of the remainder due to financial problems, the Defendant sold the said play equipment to another person and sold the said equipment to F around April 19, 2012, and embezzled F with payment of the remainder KRW 25 million as the down payment on April 20, 2012, the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million on April 23, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 23.5 million on June 11, 2012, while the Defendant was in custody for the victim on April 23, 2012, and embezzled F with payment of KRW 25 million as the remainder.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel are obligated to pay the balance to the victim, and the Defendant’s payment of the money received by the Defendant to F cannot be deemed as the money kept in custody for the victim. As such, the key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant had the victim’s ownership at the time when the Defendant sold the play machine to F.

B. According to the statement made between the victim’s investigative agency and the court, and the mechanical sales contract (in the face of 7 pages), the Defendant’s purchase of play equipment from the victim on April 6, 201, paid the remainder of KRW 5 million on the day and the remainder of KRW 45 million on April 6, 2012, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,200,000 per month to the victim on the basis of the rent by the date of the remainder payment. However, if the Defendant did not pay any balance, it is recognized that the Defendant reversed the contract and the Defendant agreed to restore it to its original state.

arrow