logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.20 2017고정1516
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around February 1, 2015, the Defendant leased the victim C’s factory in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Sungbuk-gun, in a deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and agreed to use equipment and electric installations owned by the victim in the aforementioned factory as they are.

The Defendant arbitrarily removed on November 28, 2016, when he kept two of the electric container stuffs for the victim, which are owned by the victim, from the victim, and embezzled them.

2. Facts without dispute and assertion by the defendant or his defense counsel;

A. In the absence of dispute, on February 1, 2015, the Defendant leased the victim C’s factory located in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, and KRW 50 million monthly rent, up to February 1, 2016, the Defendant agreed to use the victim’s equipment and electric installations, etc. in the said factory as they are, and at least, used the same time the same price.

2) On February 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) left D with the repair of the electrical container strawls two boxes (hereinafter “instant machinery”) among them; (b) D moved the shop in the factory; and (c) received KRW 11 million from the Defendant.

3) On July 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) returned the instant machinery repair to E; and (b) moved it to a household building and connected it to a sawr owned by the Defendant; (c) received KRW 7,460,000 from the Defendant.

4) On November 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) removed the instant machinery while taking it over at the foregoing factory (the location of the electric board which was removed from Nos. 1 and 6 of evidence and evidence Nos. 10 and 10 of the Defendant’s submission). (b) Since the instant machinery that was asserted by the Defendant and the defense counsel was newly installed by leaving it to D, it is owned by the Defendant; and (b) was carried out from the family building upon leaving it to E, and thus, the embezzlement premised on the victim’s possession cannot be established.

3. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is the burden of proof.

arrow