(영문) 부산고등법원 2020.02.06 2019노490 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 2020.02.06 2019노490

배임수재등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s receipt of breach of trust in relation to promotion B, Defendant 1 is not a KRW 75 million but a KRW 70 million.

In addition, the Defendant’s crime of this part is not the crime of taking property in breach of trust with C as an accomplice, but the crime of taking property in breach of trust with K as an accomplice, and even if the Defendant’s crime of this part constitutes the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

Even if the defendant delivered all the above money to C, the above money cannot be collected from the defendant.

B) As to the violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have engaged in credit business prior to 2016 as “business.” (c) As to the violation of the Labor Standards Act regarding employment related to B, the Defendant delivered all the requested money to C, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have engaged in the employment of another person for profit on the ground that it does not constitute “the payment” of employment.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and four months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable and unfair.B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s collusion with C, etc. in sequence and received money and valuables in relation to the employment of B is found guilty.

2) The Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act by misapprehending the legal doctrine constitutes a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Forfeiture and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act

(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable, even though it constitutes a “crime of corruption,” and thus, should be confiscated or collected as necessary. However, the lower court did not impose an additional collection as to the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) the receipt of breach of trust in relation to promotion B.

참조조문

-근로기준법

-부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2013.12.30 2013노388

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.27 2014노877

-서울남부지방법원 2013.06.21 2013노726

-대법원 2015.04.23 2015도992

-부산고등법원 2020.01.09 2019노512