(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.08.26 2014고정144

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) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.08.26 2014고정144

업무상횡령

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On June 25, 2010, the Defendant is a representative director of the Victim C Association established on June 25, 2010, who was in charge of overall management of business affairs of the said Association by October 3, 2012.

Around January 13, 2012, while the Defendant leased Haws on the D’s land owned by Go Chang-gun and raised ducks, the Defendant subleted the civil petition amount of KRW 3 million to F, and embezzled rent of KRW 3 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant for the victim, while he was in the custody of the victim for business purposes, he voluntarily consumed and embezzled as personal living expenses, etc. around that time.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful judgment. The proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge’s lack of reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant should be disregarded.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

On the other hand, if there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant used money in the place of use claimed by the defendant, such as failure to explain his/her whereabouts or place of use, or disclosure that the funds used in the place of use claimed by the defendant were appropriated for other funds, etc., even though the defendant had no money in his/her custody under his/her consignment, it may be presumed that the defendant embezzled the above money with the intent of unlawful acquisition, but if there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant used it for personal purposes, it may be deemed that the defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition, but if there are materials corresponding thereto, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the intention of unlawful acquisition, it is recognized that the defendant provided an explanation about the location or place of use of the money for other purposes, and if there are other materials corresponding thereto, then

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고정2226

-수원지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노3180

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2013.02.15 2012고단443

-전주지방법원 2015.01.30 2014노980

-광주지방법원 2015.04.28 2014노921