logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.04 2015고단2511
횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who was the representative of "E" in Gyeonggi-si D.

On October 12, 2009, the above office entered into a lease agreement between the complainant F and the complainant, and between November 5, 2009 and November 4, 2012, between the 30th day of November 30, 2009 and the 36th day of November 4, 2012, which pays the said vehicle as rent and lends the said vehicle, and received the said vehicle from the complainant on November 5, 2009.

The Defendant, as seen above, failed to pay the rent from February 2012 during the storage of the vehicle, and was requested by the complainant through mail on October 19, 2012, but embezzled the said vehicle by refusing to return the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal testimony of a witness H and I;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Three copies of a motor vehicle registration certificate, a motor vehicle lease contract, a certificate of personal seal impression, the current status of sales on credit, a gold-time screen, a certificate of contents, and three copies of a mail

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel denied the criminal intent to the effect that: (a) the instant vehicle was a long-term siren and continued payment of rent for two years; (b) the instant vehicle was delayed due to the company’s temporary difficulties; (c) the vehicle was returned; and (d) there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

“Refusal of return” in the crime of embezzlement refers to an act of expressing his/her intent to exclude the owner’s rights against a custodian. As such, the crime of embezzlement is not established solely on the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return it, and the act of refusing to return should be deemed to be the same as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal of return and the subjective intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7487, Feb. 10, 2006; 2008Do8279, Dec. 11, 2008; 201Do7637, Aug. 23, 2013).

arrow