logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2015.04.27 2014고정293
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is the actual operator of the victim M&D (representative E in the register) who is engaged in the operation of the above company and affairs, such as the receipts and disbursements of video production prices.

On May 24, 2013, the Defendant embezzled KRW 600,000,00 in total by arbitrarily consuming the price of video works under the pretext of the alcohol value on the same day, around July 24, 2013, KRW 110,000 under the same name, around July 28, 2013, KRW 200,000 under the pretext of a man’s assistance around 28, 2013, and KRW 60,000 in value under the pretext of the alcohol value around September 16, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the withdrawal and use of corporate bankbooks;

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the above money used by the defendant was used for the purpose of drinking value and assistance for the company's business, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not committed. However, even though the defendant used the corporation's revenue from the corporation's account to the individual account, it is entirely impossible to prove its expenditure, and even according to the defendant's statement, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that it is not embezzlement cannot be accepted.

However, the above argument between the defendant and the defense counsel is considered only for the reasons for sentencing in that the expenditure related to the operation of the company is clearly explained among the part transferred to the personal account.

arrow