logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.01.11 2016고단232
자격모용사문서작성등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, for one year, for defendant C, for ten months, and for six months, respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the District Court on January 28, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016, and Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the District Court on January 28, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016.

Defendant

A and B from 202 to 202, were subject to a provisional disposition of suspending the performance of their duties against Defendant A and B’s respective positions as the District Court Decision 201Kahap412 on August 31, 201, which became final and conclusive by the Seoul High Court Decision 2011Kahap786 on January 6, 201, which became final and conclusive on August 201, 201 by Defendant B and B’s appellate court’s decision to suspend the performance of duties against the respective positions of Defendant B and B, which became final and conclusive on August 21, 201, each of which became final and conclusive on August 201, 201 by the Seoul High Court Decision 201Ma1786, which became final and conclusive on August 6, 2012, but was dismissed by Defendant B and the lower court’s decision 201Ma21321, which became final and conclusive on August 21, 2012.

"2016 Highest 232 - Defendant A"

1. The defendant, while holding office as the general secretary of the family council of this case in preparation of qualification specifications and qualification specifications documents, he could arbitrarily dispose of six parcels, such as Chocheon-si N under the name of the defendant, who was subject to a disposition of suspension of the execution of general affairs, together with the defendant. The clan of this case seems to have omitted this part, and it would hinder the defendant's right of defense.

arrow