logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.16 2017노4732
새마을금고법위반등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the facts (as to the Defendants’ violation of the Saemaul Advertising Act), Defendant A conspired to offer money and valuables to F for the purpose of getting elected in the election of the president of the Saemaul Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant safe”).

2) Legal principles (as to Defendant A’s crime of embezzlement), even if the Defendant spent the attorney’s appointment cost to cope with the investigation by the police station in Gwangju Northern Northern District, with the operating fund of the instant safe, it was embezzled in light of the overall circumstances.

It can not be seen, and there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

3) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; 4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the witness K, L, and M’s respective legal statements and recording records as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, the Defendants may recognize the fact that Defendant A provided money and valuables to F, a member of the above credit cooperative, for the purpose of having Defendant A elected from the election president of the instant credit cooperative to the chief director, as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of the instant case, and some statements in F’s investigation agency and court alone are insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion

3. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine

A. As a matter of principle, attorney fees that can be paid at the expense of an organization are limited to cases where the organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit, the attorney fees for civil and criminal cases in which the representative of the organization becomes a party to the lawsuit cannot be disbursed at the expense of an organization. exceptional interests in disputes are given to an organization, but an individual who is in the status of the representative for legal reasons

arrow