logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.04.10 2013고정3386
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from July 1, 201 to April 15, 2013, has been engaged in the management of food materials and edible milk in the said restaurant as the head of the kitchen at the Ecafeteria of the victim D’s management located in G from the victim D from the victim D to the victim D, the Defendant has been engaged in the management of the said restaurant.

On October 17, 2011, the Defendant sold waste food used for food cooking at the above restaurant to the (ju) Red Seas, which is a waste collector, and received 24,000 won from the price and stored for the victim for business purposes. At that time, the Defendant consumed tobacco for personal purposes, such as purchasing tobacco.

In addition, from around that time to February 26, 2013, the Defendant consumed approximately KRW 1,112,00 in the same way over about 40 times as indicated in the annexed crime list.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor's office with respect to F and G;

1. Application of each statute on police statements made to D, H, F, and I;

1. Relevant Articles 356(1) and 355(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged to the purport that the victim allowed the Defendant to arbitrarily dispose of the sales proceeds of the waste food as stated in the facts charged on August 2011. However, according to the witness D’s testimony, it is difficult to view that the victim was permitted to dispose of it. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow