logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2016.12.15 2016고단39
횡령
Text

1. The punishment of the defendant shall be eight months;

2. Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates D Co., Ltd. in Seocho-si.

On December 12, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant machinery”) with a lease deposit of KRW 14,50,00,000, monthly payment of KRW 1,856,160, and the lease term of KRW 36 months, at the D Co., Ltd.’s office.

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was in a situation in which F, a management director of the above company, was unable to use the machinery of this case at the above company’s factory located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and requested H to repair it.

However, when the Defendant received notice from H that he could not repair the instant machinery, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the instant machinery by requesting H to install other machinery instead of the instant machinery on March 2013, where the Defendant kept the instant machinery for the sake of the victim company, and by transferring the instant machinery to H the drypall string machine.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Written complaint of enffic Capital;

1. Lease contract, certificate of acceptance, report on inspection of goods, lease machinery and photograph;

1. The current status of deposits by contract, notification of termination, and notification of delivery of corporeal movables [defense counsel asserts that the Defendant exchanged the instant machinery in consultation with the victim’s employees, and there was no intent to commit embezzlement against the Defendant. However, according to the evidence above, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant disposed of the instant machinery against the victim’s will, and there is no circumstance to reasonably suspect such fact. We do not accept the above assertion] statutory application.

1. Relevant Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment.

arrow