logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.15 2017노4808
횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

Reasons

1. The reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio determination, the prosecutor voluntarily consumed, among the facts charged, the amount equivalent to KRW 23,765,896 of the total value of KRW 26.348 tons and the total value of KRW 23,207,184 (19m) of the iron bars (10m) equivalent to the market value of KRW 26.348 tons and the total value of KRW 23,207,184 at around January 18, 2012, as the part of the facts charged, for the victim, while selling the proceeds of the sale to the mutual unsound company located in Gwangju Metropolitan City and keeping the proceeds of the sale for the victim.

In addition, the Defendants sold a total of 240.96 tons of steel bars in total five times from January 18, 2012 to March 29, 2012 by the following methods, as shown in the list of crimes, and kept the total of 215,287,996 won for the victim, and voluntarily consumed such amount under the above conditions around that time.

“Around January 18, 2012, at the same time, the part of “A” was sold to a trade name unsound company in Gwangju, which has the value of KRW 23,765,896 (10m) and the value of the iron (19m) equivalent to KRW 23,207,184 (19m) of the market value of KRW 26.208 (19m) and then used the sales value for the purpose of repaying the accounts payable to their customers at around that time, as indicated in the list of crimes attached hereto, from January 18, 2012 to March 29, 2012.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed,” and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's unfair assertion of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen earlier.

arrow