logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.01.21 2015고단1088
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged [Basic Facts] From the end of December 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded an agreement on the supply of original eggs and 3,120 horses from the injured on December 25, 2012; (b) received 2,180 horses and feed from the injured Party E, and received 90,797,390 won for raising, raising, 90,797, and 390 won for raising, 90,797, and 390 won for raising, from the injured Party, to the end of January 16, 2013.

Meanwhile, around January 2014, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry prohibited the movement of birds and eggs produced within the jurisdiction due to the outbreak of algaes within the jurisdiction, and entirely discarded birds, and thus, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paid compensation to the owner of slaughtered livestock, etc. pursuant to Article 8 of the Guidelines for Payment of Compensation for the Unclaimed Livestock, etc. (hereinafter “Guidelines for Payment”), which is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry announced of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for the payment of compensation. However, due to the error of business, the Defendant, who is the full-time breedinger of original animals and the full-time manager, was paid the compensation.

[2] The defendant is a person who had been engaged in the business of raising the original eggs owned by the victim from around December 25, 2012 to deliver all of the original eggs produced from the original eggs owned by the victim to the victim from around December 25, 2012, and around May 2, 2014, the defendant was 37,049,000 won under the name of compensation for the original eggs owned by the victim and 143,342,00 won under the same name around June 30, 2014, and then received KRW 180,391,000 from each defendant's account in his/her name and kept them for business purposes on around August 2014, 2014. However, the defendant did not have a full return to the victim without justifiable grounds, and the amount is equivalent to the same.

arrow