logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.12 2016고정720
배임수재
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the construction site of Incheon, took overall control of D works as the site manager of the FF corporation in the process of receiving D works from D in Seo-gu, Incheon, and taking charge of D works. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant was transferred KRW 200,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Deposit Account in the name of the Defendant, in return for the receipt of an implied solicitation for requesting convenience in soil and sand inspection and delivery, including implied entry of earth and sand below the standard, by entering into a supply contract with F and Saturdays at the above construction site.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 5,400,000 from that time until February 7, 2013, in return for the above solicitation, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

As a result, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation by a person who administers another's business.

2. The Defendant and H consistently acknowledged the fact that the Defendant and H received KRW 5.4 million from the police to the present court, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant and H received money from the police, and argued that the “illegal solicitation” was not an “illegal solicitation.” In addition, there is no direct evidence as to the fact that there was an explicit or implied solicitation to the effect that “the convenience in tallying and delivering earth and sand, such as the implied entry of earth and sand below the standard, is changed” in relation to the receipt of money and valuables, and even considering the following circumstances revealed by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the said money received from H constituted a consideration for the above illegal solicitation, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

A. The Defendant mainly conducted survey at the construction site indicated in the facts charged and did not conduct earth and sand inspection.

arrow