logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.10 2017노2189
업무상횡령등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and eight months.

Defendant

B.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for each sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and two years of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, this case’s determination is disadvantageous to the following: (a) Defendant A conspireds with his accomplices or embezzled money in the course of acting as an intermediary for a loan contract between the lending company and the lending company; (b) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the content or frequency of the crime; (c) the Defendant forged private documents necessary for the loan in the process; (d) the amount of damage incurred from the instant fraud and occupational embezzlement exceeds KRW 654,350,000 in total; and (e) considerable damage still appears to have not been recovered; and (e) the fact that the said Defendant served as an important part in the crime committed in collusion with his accomplices.

However, the above defendant's confession of each of the crimes of this case and the above defendant did not have any record of the same crime, and the above defendant paid 12 million won to the new Liber, Inc., which received claims from H in lieu of the victim AU of 1694 case in the judgment of the court below, in lieu of the victim AU of 2016 high group 16 high group 1694 case, and terminated the obligation of the victim AU., which was decided in the judgment of the court below. 2015 high group 2025 case in the judgment of the court below, the victim NN did not want to be punished by the above defendant, and the above defendant reached the judgment of the court below, 2016 high group 16 high group 1694 case in the judgment of the court below, 200,000 won loan and 150,0000 won loan from the victim P. 150,000 won loan and 150,000 won loan from H.

arrow