logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.09.18 2015고단165
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D (hereinafter “victim or victim company”) to operate the education center and branch office, and received a request from the victim to pay the amount of teaching materials provided by the victim to the Gangwon-do Child Care Center and the kindergarten according to the above contract.

Around March 21, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 4,250,00 from F, the president of the EA kindergarten located in the original city, to the account in the name of the Defendant, and stored for the victim. Around that time, the Defendant used the amount of KRW 4,250,00 for personal use, such as living expenses, in mind, from Japan in Chuncheon City.

From around that time to September 6, 201, the Defendant consumed total of KRW 23,280,000 in the same way on seven occasions at the seat of the city in Chuncheon, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, for personal use.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Since the defendant's summary of his/her defense counsel entered into a contract for supply of teaching materials independently from the Gangwon District Child Care Center and the kindergarten, the amount of such teaching materials does not constitute embezzlement by using the money owned by the defendant, not the money preserved for the victim.

3. The following circumstances revealed through the records of judgment, namely, ① the Defendant entered into a contract for the consignment transaction with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) on April 1, 2006 with education centers and publication (hereinafter “instant contract”) and operated G Gangwon branch. In the process that the I operating G establishes the victim company on April 10, 2009 and closes G on December 30, 2009, it may be deemed that the victim succeeded to the instant contract status of G and the Defendant operated the Gangwon branch office of the victim company. However, the said Gangwon branch office belongs to the victim company, unlike the ordinary branch office.

arrow