logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.02.07 2012고정1692
업무상배임
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. From May 2009 to March 5, 2011, the Defendant was engaged in the business of the said clan while serving as a business director at the “CJ” group, the victim, as a business director.

According to the rules of the above clan, the lease of the land owned by the clan shall be subject to a resolution of the general meeting of representatives.

On January 25, 2011, the Defendant violated the business duty to be resolved by the general meeting of the representatives of the above clans in the area of the Soyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Defendant leased 40,006 square meters to E without going through the resolution of the general meeting of the representatives, and the Defendant did not deposit it with the clans even though 2.8 million won was received from the above E as rent, and the Defendant did not deposit it into the clans, and made it difficult to recover it because it was given to the F who buried the above land as 2.8 million won.

In this respect, the defendant acquired the F with monetary benefits equivalent to 2.8 million won, and the victim suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.

2. On such determination, the Defendant asserts that, at the time, the Defendant was actually in need of new lease and partial subdivision of the land of this case, and that the Defendant continued with approval from the Vice-President, etc. of the clan by normally raising the relevant draft, and that the Defendant did not have any intention of breach of trust.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant promoted the lease and the restoration of the land of this case without the resolution of the general meeting of the clan, but only such fact alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's intention of breach of trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

오히려, 공판 및 기록에서 확인할 수 있는 다음과 같은 점, 즉 ① 피고인은 2010. 1. 17. 무렵 이 사건 토지(H)와 I 토지에 관하여 기존 임차인(J)의 도조(賭租) 미납 문제 및 복토 문제와 관련하여, 기존 임대차계약을 해지한 후 1년치 도조 선지급을 조건으로 임대차 계약을 새로 체결할 것과 토지의 형질변경 답에서...

arrow