(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016고정1578

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016고정1578

횡령

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the above fine shall be imposed on 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the director of the management office of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Permanent Rental Apartment.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant donated KRW 1.5 million to the 201-dong apartment complex as a guard company of the above apartment complex in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and kept it under the pretext of the installation expenses for the above apartment complex 201-dong fences, and paid KRW 1.2 million in the 200,000,000,000 won, and used the remaining 3 million as the expenses for the installation of the fences at will of the management office on March 18, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the above apartment house that is the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A copy of the staff list, receipt, management fee passbook [the defendant and his defense counsel shall pay 300,000 won after installing fences out of the 1.5 million won received from the world security management company to the world security management company, and the defendant used the above 300,000 won as a revolving cost without returning the regular business of the world security management company. Thus, the defendant's use of the above 300,000 won as a revolving cost is not an embezzlement of the apartment's property. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant's use of the revolving cost as a revolving cost is not an embezzlement of the apartment's property. However, according to the above evidence, since the world security management company directly installs the fences in the apartment, it is deemed that the above money is the property of the apartment's resident, even if it is proper to use the remaining money in the world security management company, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant, the manager of the above money, has no authority to arbitrarily dispose of it].

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

참조조문

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.06.12 2014고정494

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가합51029

-부산지방법원 2013.09.27 2013고정680

-수원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015노2831

-서울남부지방법원 2014.09.17 2014가단213299