(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.05.14 2014고단1643

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) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.05.14 2014고단1643

횡령

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was entrusted with the storage of 2,00,000 won in the market price of 32,000,000,000 won in total; (b) transferred 2,000,000,000 won in the vehicle market from the victim E at the workplace of the Defendant’s company, which is a major trading, trade, and intermediary company for the operation of the Defendant in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (c) transferred 2,00,000 won in total in the vehicle market of the said workplace; and (d) transferred 4,00,000,000 won in full name-time with the said 1,70,000 won in full-time end of May 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness E’s legal statement (i) the Defendant asserts that the ownership of each of the instant vehicles belongs to the Defendant. According to the consistent statement made in the investigative agency and in this court, the ownership of each of the instant vehicles belongs to the victim. ② In addition, the Defendant asserted that, at the time, there were justifiable grounds for the Defendant to keep each of the instant vehicles in order to secure the right of retention for the claim held by the victim, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was not liable for the crime of embezzlement due to the above disposal. According to the statement made by the victim in this court, it is recognized that the Defendant was liable for the return of investment deposit against the Defendant, separate from each of the instant vehicles. However, each of the above disposal acts is not justified on the sole basis of such circumstances. Also, the Defendant did not act of disposal as set-off settlement against his own claim. Accordingly, the Defendant

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 (1) of the same Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Code among concurrent crimes.

참조조문

-형법 제37조

-형법 제355조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.01.18 2018고단1359

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2015.09.03 2015고단122

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019.08.30 2019고단746

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.09 2019고합138

-인천지방법원 2016.11.25 2016고정2785