logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노4133
업무상배임등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of occupational breach of trust, which is erroneous in the summary of the grounds for appeal. The defendant's act of establishing the right to collateral security does not constitute another person's business and did not cause damage to the victim due to the right to collateral security in this case.

Since the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of receiving the money from the victim J, there is no fact of deceiving the victim, and there is a criminal intention of defraudation.

Even though it is difficult to see it, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud.

The sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of mistake in the course of occupational breach of trust on the part of a motor vehicle owner and a motor vehicle transport business operator, the owner of the motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "road owner") externally entrusts the name of the motor vehicle to a motor vehicle transport business operator (hereinafter referred to as the "branch operator") and vests the ownership and the right to manage operation of the motor vehicle in the company where the ownership and the right to manage the motor vehicle are vested. On the contrary, the "motor vehicle management contract for the motor vehicle" with the purport that the owner of the motor vehicle is obliged to pay a certain amount of management expenses to the company to which he/she belongs when he/she is entrusted with the management right of the motor vehicle in his/her own manner after being entrusted with the management right of the motor vehicle in his/her own manner is a contract in which the name and the trust are combined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71534, 71541, Feb. 11, 2010). Therefore, the agreement between the owner of the motor vehicle and the designated owner is a duty to preserve the property value of the motor vehicle.

arrow