logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노3950
업무상횡령등
Text

The judgment below

Part 1-C of the Judgment among the part not guilty and the part guilty.

Part of the crime shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be held.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts (as to the crime No. 1-g. of the judgment in its holding), the appellate court shall judge without any need to examine whether the grounds for the ex officio examination are submitted if the appeal is lawful, or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, with respect to non-grounds for ex officio examination, it may be the object of the trial only where it is included in the petition of appeal or the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period. However, even if it is not included in the statement of reasons affecting the judgment, it may be tried ex officio even if it is not included in the statement of reasons for appeal. Meanwhile, even if the defendant or defense counsel states matters not included in the statement of reasons for appeal

Nor can it be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do167 delivered on February 26, 2002). The defendant is decided No. 1-C.

Although the allegation that the crime is not established for the reason that there is no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, the ground for appeal does not state the above contents, but does not state the content within the period for submission of a legitimate reason for appeal, so the above argument cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. Even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was examined, there is no reason to ex officio investigation that could affect the judgment in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is not subject to the trial ex officio.

The defendant set up a collateral security in the J Mart's name and lent KRW 200 million to the J Mart's operation fund, and the remaining KRW 100 million is used as a separate investment fund, and the victim's consent is obtained.

arrow