logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.10.24 2019노171
업무상배임등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the land D (hereinafter “instant land”) for which ownership transfer registration has been completed in the name of Defendant A’s spouse, did not correspond to the purpose of the project for the agricultural road package, which was promoted by the Defendants, since there was no farming house, and the land owner at the time was not subject to a letter of consent to the construction, Defendant A, etc., by exercising influence on the public officials in charge, such as Defendant B, etc., carried out the precise packaging work for some sections of the instant land and the access roads to the said V land (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

Defendant

B In addition, even though it was not necessary to expand or pack the farming roads adjacent to the instant land in the process of prosecutor investigation, the Defendants made a statement to the effect that they ordered the instant construction in accordance with Defendant A’s instructions. The Defendants were in violation of the duties of public officials, and thus, expected to be ipso facto not in accordance with the statutory or good faith

The Defendants spent KRW 76,649,434 of the E’s budget for the instant construction work, and the use value of the instant land was increased due to the said construction work, and some sections already used as farmland were transferred to the instant land.

As a result, Defendant A obtained property benefits with the E’s budget, and thus, Defendant A’s intent of breach of trust is also recognized.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of ordering the instant construction work and executing the relevant construction cost with the E’s budget cannot be readily concluded as an intentional act contrary to the statutory duties or the duty of good faith and good faith that should be observed as a public official.

① H, which operated a stable in the vicinity of the instant land, is the instant case.

arrow