logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.31 2019노710
업무상횡령등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The part of occupational embezzlement from September 20, 2016 to March 2, 2017, the Defendant was not in the position to exercise overall control over the fund management by a stock company B (hereinafter “B”), and the Defendant’s 18 million won, which he received from September 20, 2016 to March 2, 2017, is the money personally borrowed from D.

On July 22, 2016, the Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million from D on July 22, 2016.

On February 22, 2017, the Defendant did not receive KRW 5 million from D on February 22, 2017.

On December 31, 2015, the Defendant did not speak the victim H as described in this part of the facts charged in relation to the heat development.

Even if such a statement was made, since the heating board could have been commercialized within 203 months, it was not deceiving the victim, but did not have the intention of defraudation.

On January 15, 2016 and May 4, 2016, the fraud part of the borrowed money was not the same as the stated in this part of the facts charged in relation to M with the victim H, and even if the said part was said, the victim H did not have been lent with the investment funds from M, and therefore, the victim H did not deceiving the victim, but did not have the intention of defraudation.

The sentence (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court, or the result of the examination of evidence conducted by the first instance court and the appellate court.

arrow