logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.07.25 2013고단2077
업무상횡령등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the purchase of materials and the management of materials necessary for the Corporation from December 16, 2006 to November 24, 2012 in the victims (states) B located in the entire west-gun of the Republic of Korea from November 16, 2006.

around December 2011, the Defendant: (a) received pipelines, etc. from “D”, which was in charge of the foregoing duties, from “D”; (b) sold them without using them at the construction site; and (c) sold them individually; (d) around December 5, 201, from “D” operated by “D”, the Defendant signed the details of transactions in the name of the said victim company and sold them at the discretion of KRW 1,190,000 on G, which was in charge of the said victim’s business and kept in custody on behalf of the said victim company.

In addition, from around that time to around November 10, 2012, the Defendant received a total of 81,869,940 won by the same method and arbitrarily disposed of at least 45 times, as shown in Appendix 1.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Around June 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) called “F in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd.; and (b) concluded that “When cash is deposited, it shall be divided into 7:3 and that it shall be collected.” (c) deposited 4 million won from F, and

On August 14, 2012, the Defendant claimed KRW 1,505,790 for the supply price of the materials to the victims by preparing a false statement of transaction and tax invoice at the above D office.

However, there was no fact that the defendant was supplied with piping materials from F at all.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.

arrow