(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.10.13 2017고단596

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) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.10.13 2017고단596

업무상횡령등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant 2017 senior group 596 was engaged in the consignment sale and collection of goods as the sales shop of the “E”, which is the agent of the victim D Co., Ltd. located in Ilyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City from December 1, 2014 to September 29, 2016.

Since the Defendant collected KRW 18,485,320 from January 2016 to December 5, 2016 from F, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed goods for personal purposes, such as living expenses, while keeping in custody for the victim company while carrying out his/her duties, and provided goods free of charge to customers during the same period, but not on the “daily sales status”, he/she voluntarily consumed the sales proceeds and goods for the victim company while keeping them in custody for the victim company.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. In light of the above E around September 30, 2016, Defendant 2017 high group 908 Defendant G does not lower goods from the head office due to the failure to pay the value of goods to the head office.

It would be possible to repay the value of the goods to the head office, and the interest shall be KRW 700,000 per month for the loan amount of KRW 10,000,000,000, and the amount shall be repaid in return for the time limit.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant did not limit the amount at that time, and there was a debt equivalent to KRW 35 million borrowed from the lender, and the amount of gambling debt was equivalent to KRW 35 million. The Defendant embezzled the sales price of the company that he worked and repaid the said debt and personal debt, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if he borrowed the money from the victim.

On the same day, the defendant had the victim pay 13,373,300 won for the goods to the E company of the defendant, thereby taking property profits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

2017 Highest 596

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. The inventory inspection table and the Customer Director.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고단5918

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.17 2015고단7019

-대전지방법원 2016.06.14 2015고단2003

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.08.14 2019고단323

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.01.13 2015고단1124