logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014노2598
횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is dismissed from the position of the assistant teacher's liquidator, and it is difficult to see that the defendant used the money for the benefit of the victim, and that it is evident that the defendant has used the money for the benefit of the victim, and that the defendant has no intention of unlawful acquisition, by mistake of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. D Line Teachers, a summary of the facts charged, (hereinafter “National Teachers”) were dissolved by the Minister of Unification’s revocation of permission for incorporation on November 21, 2007 and the Seoul High Court Order 2009Ra287 dated September 23, 201. The Defendant was dismissed from office as a liquidator of the above Line Teachers on September 24, 2012 by the District Court Order 2012Mo29 dated September 24, 2012, and thereafter, the attorney E is in the position of liquidator of the above Line Teachers.

The Defendant, as seen above, was dismissed from the position of the liquidator and was not authorized to do so, while keeping passbooks and deposits owned by the Line Teachers and their deposits without transferring them to E, a liquidator, 1) around October 4, 2012, the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number: G; hereinafter “Ship Teachers’ Account”) in the name of the Victim’s Name in the F Line Teachers’ Office located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

(i) 90 million won, among deposits deposited in H, shall be the Agricultural Cooperative Deposit Account in H’s name (Account Number: I. hereinafter “H Account”);

(2) around November 6, 2012, 31 million won, among deposits deposited in the said prior teachers’ account in the said prior teachers’ account, was embezzled by arbitrarily transferring them to the said prior teachers’ account by the said method.

B. The lower court and the first instance court, first of all, held that a person who keeps another’s property in the context of embezzlement, namely, the following legal principles.

arrow