logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.06.12 2013노392
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust), actively participated in the misappropriation of V, etc., such as: (a) the Defendants, in response to the demand of T&T, did not merely cooperate in simply raising funds for non-financing; (b) but rather, (c) paid a subcontract price in installments, and offered rebates to offer part of them as rebates; and (d) thus, they should be deemed to have had the intent to jointly process the instant misappropriation

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the charges of breach of trust of this case on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants had an intention to jointly process the crime of breach of trust, such as V, etc.

B. The entry of the portion of the non-capital invested in breach of trust in the register is not only arranged to receive rebates for a long time from a large number of collaborative companies, but also there is no reason to enter the fact that the company in charge of the settlement of accounts did not receive rebates, and therefore, there is no reason to enter that the company in charge of the settlement of accounts was subject to rebates, and thus, it is more objective data consistent with the fact relevance than Defendant E’s assertion that there was no provision of money and valuables in an illegal solicitation based on only memory, and Defendant E consistently stated the receipt of money and valuables from Defendant E. In full view of the fact that Defendant E consistently stated the fact that X and the team leader of the Civil CM Technology Team and the team leader of the non-capital invested company in the resolution of the resolution of the settlement of accounts, and Defendant E also recognized the fact that money and valuables were provided from Defendant E in connection with the subcontracting

Nevertheless, the lower court committed a crime as to this part of the facts charged solely on the ground that the contents of the account book for non-funds may not be accurate.

arrow