logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노2732
업무상횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Progress;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of misunderstanding the facts, etc., on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, and the appellate court prior to returning was all dismissed, and the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment prior to returning, on the grounds of violation of statutes.

(c)

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and remanded the case to the court of this case on the ground that it exceeded the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or misunderstanding the legal principles on embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that Defendant’s claim for the return of the deposit amount was not offered as collateral for transfer to H, but was transferred. As above, Defendant Company transferred the claim for the return of the deposit amount to Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) for the purpose of the Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) with the right to dispose of KRW 1,000 tons of scrap metal to V (hereinafter “V”), and the Defendant agreed to receive the payment of the sales amount of KRW 1,000 tons of scrap metal from V, and was granted the right to dispose of KRW 1,000 tons of scrap metals owned by the Victim Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the defendant arbitrarily used the proceeds of sale of 1,000 tons of scrap metal.

Even if embezzlement is not established, embezzlement is not established.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was registered as a director of a victim company operating a comprehensive sunset of Internet construction materials on April 13, 2011, and was in charge of overseas management of the said high-speed steel business as a director in charge of overseas affairs while exercising overall control over the affairs of the said high-speed steel business.

arrow