beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was a person who actually operated the Victim D Co., Ltd. (the representative E, hereinafter referred to as “D”), and was in charge of the management of the company’s vehicle.
On May 23, 2012, the Defendant violated his/her occupational duty to manage D owned vehicles in good faith, and provided Fmerc trucks (on the same day, the maximum debt amount of the mortgage) as collateral (the maximum debt amount of the loan amount of KRW 47,600,000) to employees under his/her name at the office located in the Nam-gu Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government office, Daegu-gu, as collateral for the Fmerc trucks (the loan amount of KRW 47,60,000), which is a vehicle owned by D, and used them for personal debt repayment, etc. on the same day. The Defendant was indicted against D to the effect that a prosecutor equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the mortgage as above, equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the loan amount of KRW 58,00,00,000, property damage was inflicted on D with the loan amount of KRW 58,000,000 against D. However, the debtor of the loan incurred damage
Since there is no risk of actual disadvantage to the defendant's right of defense, it shall be recognized as stated in the facts stated in the judgment ex officio without going through amendment procedures.
The property damage was caused by the property damage.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The police statement concerning G;
1. A complaint;
1. Application of the above consignment management contract, copy of passbook, register of automobiles (F), and each statute;
1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reason for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of recommending punishment] Embezzlement Embezzlement Embezzlement 1st, 1st, basic area of imprisonment, 4th to 1st April 4th [Pronouncement Decision] is against the Defendant’s crime of this case. The Defendant appears to have made partial repayment of loans while running D, and the amount of loans has been repaid in the amount of KRW 18 million through the recent compulsory execution procedure.