(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.12.09 2015고단6684

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) 인천지방법원 2015.12.09 2015고단6684

배임

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

around June 25, 2013, the Defendant purchased B (BMW 520d F10d F10 Y13) vehicles in the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Babaz, under the name of a stock company the representative director of which is C, and borrowed KRW 59,563,630 of the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim social service Korea Co., Ltd., which was the social service company of the victim, and set up a collateral security equivalent to the same amount on the said vehicle as security around June 26, 2013, and thus, there was a duty to maintain the collateral value of the said vehicle.

Nevertheless, around December 5, 2013, the Defendant sold the said vehicle to D in violation of the above duties at the office located in the office located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Nam-gu Office, and took property profits equivalent to KRW 1 million, and suffered damage equivalent to KRW 59,563,630, which is the secured debt amount, to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a complaint, register of automobiles, statement of termination of termination, contract certificate, deposit statement, and loan contract;

1. Relevant Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1665, Sept. 13, 2012) states that the instant facts charged are acknowledged, but the act does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. In a case where a mortgage is established on a motor vehicle, the exchange value of the motor vehicle is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager wishes to sell the motor vehicle to another person, barring any special circumstance, the mere sale of the motor vehicle which is the object of the mortgage by the mortgager does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. However, barring any special circumstance, the crime of breach of trust may not be exempted in a case where the debtor provided a motor vehicle

참조조문

-형법 제62조 제1항

-형법 제355조 제2항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.10.15 2015노1289

-대법원 2012.09.13 2010도11665

-부산지방법원 2010.01.19 2009고단6313

-인천지방법원 2015.04.02 2015노126

-대전지방법원 2015.12.08 2015고단1208