logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.05.02 2017노21
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only prepared two contracts at the request of the J, and did not know at all that the J, etc. attempted to embezzled the amount of the union’s money, in order to reduce the transfer income tax.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a joint principal offender who conspiredd to commit the crime of this case since the defendant had no intent to jointly process the crime of this case and no functional control over the criminal intent to establish the joint principal offender.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with J, etc. in light of the following circumstances, particularly the Defendant’s status and role in the crime, and the relationship between the Defendant’s J, etc., which are duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined:

may be appointed by the Corporation.

The decision was determined.

1) The Defendant, together with J and E, conducted the business of purchasing the D apartment site, performed the duties of the president of the D Regional Housing Association, and participated in the business of purchasing the G apartment site after concluding a real estate consulting service contract for the purchase of housing construction and G apartment site. As such, the Defendant was in a position to know about the structure and progress of the D and G apartment construction project, land purchase methods, and funds flow.

Therefore, even if the defendant did not actively participate in the negotiation process regarding the sale of the clan land of this case.

In light of the fact that the above status of the defendant was the most part of the building site of the clan G apartment, the defendant has continuously established a close relationship for the purchase of the building site of the defendant, J, E, and G apartment, the defendant also has been related to the trade of the clan land of this case.

arrow