logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2013.06.14 2012노388
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Text

The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “criminal facts”) (hereinafter “crimes”) (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) supplied E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with the headquarters of F or H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) before February 2006 through F or H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), and then supplied E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) with the portion of occupational breach of trust (hereinafter “criminals”) ① the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) supplied 304 and STS 430 supplied by G (hereinafter “G”). Since G could not immediately supply each of the above lectures to H, it was an essential role in G’s distribution structure.

Therefore, since F had a legitimate processing profit or operating profit, F had a criminal intent in breach of trust.

It can not be said that the victim ELE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.") caused damage.

B. On the other hand, the value of STS 201, which is the type of occupational breach of trust under paragraph (2) of the crime, is determined by the agreement between the research institute and the president of the victim company, not by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is merely a person assisting the decision-making, and the defendant is not in a position to handle the affairs of the victim company. ② Since the supply unit price from STS 201, which the F notifies the victim company, reflects the defective supply unit price and personnel expenses, the supply unit price is ordinarily reflected in the actual supply unit price, and thus, even if the defendant notified such supply unit price to the victim company, the act of breach of duty cannot be deemed as an act. ③ The defendant is not related to the determination of the price of the air conditioners or the business division after December 2, 2007 of the business division in charge, such as electronic recognition and cleaning, in addition to the determination of the price until November 207.

arrow