logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노766
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant

B and Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed, respectively.

The judgment below

Among the defendants A, C, and E, it is against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, D, and E (misunderstanding of the facts) held as the president of the meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case and disbursed the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, since the above Defendants were disbursed for the occupants of the apartment of this case through lawful procedures, they embezzled the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. In the court below's decision, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of limitations to the effect that the defendant A, C, and the defendant E withdraw the No. 29 of the list of crimes listed in the annexed Table 2 of the court below among the facts charged against the defendant A, the defendant C, and the defendant E, and the defendant E respectively. Since this court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it, the part against the defendant E among the judgment below was no longer maintained. The changed part among the part against the defendant A and the defendant C of the court below's decision and the remaining part of the crime of embezzlement recognized by the court below are concurrent crimes listed in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against the defendant A and the defendant C of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in its entirety (Provided, That despite the above reasons for reversal of the court below, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant C and the defendant E's assertion that the defendant C and the defendant Eul were erroneous with the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's representative of the above defendant Eul and the plaintiff's representative of the plaintiff.

arrow