logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.17 2017고합530
배임수재
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against Defendant A is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the Director-General of the Trade Union Organization of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) who was in charge of the education, wage negotiations, etc. of union members (as approximately 1,500 union members), and Defendant B is the business director of E (E) representative interest corporation D (hereinafter “E”).

A. As Defendant A’s breach of trust worked as the director of the welfare bureau of the Trade Union from around September 201 to around September 201, and the director of the labor union from around September 2014, Defendant A served as C’s head of the labor union, Defendant A’s employee and his/her family members, and Defendant A’s employee F (Conclusion with G, May 2015), a workplace-based internal education for the communication and harmony of employees C (hereinafter “H education”) and H education (hereinafter “H education”) for the promotion of the organization in 2012, and other education [hereinafter “J education”) for the promotion of the organization in 2014” (hereinafter “K education”) reflects the position of the employee’s position in the process of selecting employees and members of the labor union who participated in the process of assessing the influence of the employee’s participation in the selection of the employee’s labor union in the process of assessing the status of the employee’s participation in the selection of the employee, such as DoF and H education.

Defendant

B as a business director of D’s representative interest E, entered into a contract for the provision of goods for education assistance with G that received “J education” from C in 2012, and entered into a contract for the provision of goods for education assistance with G that received “K education” from C in 2014, and has been continuously involved in the supply of goods for workplace education and workplace education assistance.

In particular, Defendant B received a “F” order from C in 2015 for the entire employees and their families.

arrow