logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.18 2016고단1665
횡령
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 14, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daejeon District Court on April 14, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2016.

On May 27, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim non-victim MW 520D car acquisition cost of KRW 61,660,540, lease period of KRW 48 months, monthly lease amount of KRW 1,264,352 in the entire C market located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul. On the same day, the Defendant received delivery from the victim and kept the said vehicle for the victim.

On September 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from bond holders and delivered the said car to the name-free bond holders as security.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A complaint;

1. Content certification;

1. An application for operating lease;

1. Corporation registry;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: A copy of the judgment (Seoul District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 358), and the application of the detailed inquiry of the case (Seoul District Court 2016 High Court 2872) related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to deal with concurrent crimes: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) is the time when and against the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has no same criminal record and only one-time fine; and (c) the equity in the case where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the crime of fraud as stated in the judgment that became final and conclusive; (d) the amount of embezzlement due to the instant crime is considerable; (e) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (e) the Defendant did not make efforts to recover damage; and (e) the victimized person wanting to punish the Defendant; and (e) the records and trial process of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, are revealed.

arrow