logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.07.15 2015노4593
횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant again requested to the victim E to transport a transport case requested by the CJ date Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CJ date Logistics”), and the defendant again mediated the CJ date logistics and the transport contract between the victim. Thus, the transport payment that the defendant received from CJ date logistics is the money in custody of the defendant for the victim. Even if the defendant was awarded a contract for a transport case from CJ date logistics and sub-subcontracts it to the victim, the above transport payment can be easily specified through the mere settlement procedure of money acquired by the defendant in accordance with the delegation of the duties, so the status of the defendant's custodian as to the above transport payment is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who carries on the transportation business with the trade name of D Co., Ltd. in Busan Jung-gu and the victim E is a person who carries on the transportation business with the trade name of G Co., Ltd. in Busan Dong-gu, and the Defendant is a transaction relationship that subcontracts transportation items received from other distribution companies to the victim

From January 28, 2014 to November 28, 2014, the Defendant received a request from the CJ Mediation Day to pay KRW 5,357,000 for the carriage of subcontracted quasi-transport cases to the victim, and was in custody for the victim, but did not pay it to the victim and embezzled all of the Defendant’s operating expenses, etc. around that time.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant and the victim are all persons engaged in the logistics transport business, and (b) part of the transport cases entrusted to each other from around 2012 pursuant to business practices.

arrow