(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노198 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노198

절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be set forth as a fine of four million won.

Defendant. A fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding D Limited Company (hereinafter “instant company”) is a Chinese subsidiary company with interest on the subsidiaries established by the Defendant, and the Defendant was in overall control through E, and thus, it cannot be denied the Defendant’s de facto control over the goods owned by the instant company.

B. As the Defendant’s removal of the instant company’s owned goods was intended to close the subsidiaries and move them to the head office due to the unfair act of E, there was an intention of unlawful acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In this Court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Bill of Indictment as the alternative addition of the charges of obstructing the exercise of rights as stated below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In a case where the representative director of the company which judged the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the defendant takes the goods of the company in possession of another person as a representative director's act based on the status of representative director, such act shall be deemed to be an act as a representative agency of the company, and thus, the company's goods shall also be deemed to be "self-goods" as referred to in the obstruction of exercise of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1170, Jan. 21, 192, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including the testimony of the witness E of the court below, the defendant shall be responsible for the actual management of the company of this case by E in China,

참조판례

-대법원 1992. 1. 21. 선고 91도1170 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.08.30 2016노1834

-울산지방법원 2017.11.24 2016노2214

-전주지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노1139

-부산지방법원 2018.05.25 2017고단5535

-대구지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노2301