(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노291 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노291

횡령등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution against the violation of the Act on Mortgage on Factories and Mining Foundations among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted or acquitted the remainder of the facts charged.

Accordingly, since a prosecutor filed an appeal only for the remaining part except the dismissed part of the public prosecution and did not appeal for the dismissed part of the public prosecution, the part of the judgment below which dismissed the public prosecution shall be excluded from the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Fact finding that the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant consented to the sale of press machinery among the instant equipment in the wage payment schedule that the Defendant signed and sealed by J was included in the instant equipment as a result of the return of a total of 41 points of equipment (hereinafter “instant equipment”), such as presses 225,243,107 won (hereinafter “the instant equipment”); (b) Ma and Y’s employees belonging to D (hereinafter “D”); and (c) the Defendant reported the sale of the instant equipment from J, but did not raise any objection; and (d) the Defendant consented to the sale of press machinery among the instant equipment; and (e) in light of the fact that the Defendant signed and sealed by J, the Defendant was also included in the instant equipment in the scrap metal to be disposed of.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of three million won) is too unhued and unfair.

3. Determination

A. On October 27, 2008, the summary of this part of the facts charged was determined as to the assertion of mistake. D of this part of the facts charged: (a) around October 27, 2008, the victim produced and supplied the parts of the automobile to the victim; and (b) the victim entered into a basic contract with D to lend gold, machinery, and apparatus necessary for the manufacture of the parts

The defendant who is the representative director of D shall be from October 23, 2009 to October 23, 2013.

참조조문

-공장 및 광업재단 저당법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가합503776

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단224251

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.06.26 2019고단377

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.07.13 2016가단27971

-광주고등법원 2018.01.17 2016나14491