(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.19 2019고단811

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.19 2019고단811

업무상횡령

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

When the accused does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a person who operates a private company in the name of “B” and has been entrusted with all business affairs of the victim of the unmanned loan equipment manufacturing and selling company as a whole by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (Representative D).

around April 5, 2011, the Defendant entered into a total sales contract with G and unmanned loans at the office of “B” under the Seo-gu Seoul Building F, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and from April 8, 2011.

5. From April 11, 2011 to the IF account in the name of H (B) used by the Defendant to be transferred to the IF account as a price for installation of unmanned loan instruments, while being kept on behalf of the victim company for business purposes;

5. up to 23. 60 million won was remitted to the victim company account. At that time, the remaining 60 million won was used for the operating expenses, etc. of B and embezzled at will.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution concerning D concerning the examination of suspects;

1. Penalty provisions: Criminal Act 356 and 355 (1) (Selection of Fine);

1. Inducing at a workhouse: A fine shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act was committed by the Defendant and D in the course of the investigation of the case in which the Defendant filed a fraudulent complaint by fraud; (b) the representative D of the victim company expressed his intent to punish the Defendant as equivalent to the amount of damage; (c) the victim company’s return of the money that the victim company should return because the contract with G becomes null and void; and (d) by agreement with G, the victim company did not incur substantial damage to the victim company due to the embezzlement of the Defendant; and (e) there was only

참조조문

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제356조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.02.13 2018고단3910

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.23 2018고단3772

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.15 2019고단3092

-서울고등법원 2020.04.29 2019나2043512

-서울동부지방법원 2019.12.18 2019고단3188