(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노5359 | 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) 수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노5359

업무상횡령

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the council of occupants' representatives of the instant apartment on December 18, 2007, which had to pay the key of the gold 15 foot to Defendant A, is null and void. The instant apartment is not subject to lawful procedures. Until now, the instant apartment does not have granted a reward under Article 74 of the instant management rules to anyone other than the Defendant A, and the Defendant A decided to grant a reward during the process of serving as the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, and thus, the time of such decision is exceptional. In light of the above, it should be deemed that the Defendants had the intent to obtain unlawful permission.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

① At the time of December 18, 2007, D, E, F, G, H, and I, at the court of original instance, testified that, after the end of the council of occupants' representatives, as a general secretary I, Defendant A, the Speaker, was released after the council of occupants' representatives ends, and that, with the consent of a majority of the representatives present, Defendant A, who was born for an apartment for a long time, passed a resolution to pay yellow fever to Defendant A.

Defendant

A decided on December 21, 2007 to pay 15 money to him/her as the key of the audit plaque and the drive 15 money, but the execution order was made by I.

② On December 28, 2007, Defendant B purchased the keys of the audit plaque and the pedago and delivered them to Defendant A, Defendant A could not receive such keys in the process that he did not receive any marbling, and Defendant A made 15 keys of the said pedago by paying his own expenses and then divided them into her representative and her female president, etc.

However, D, which was one of the Dong representatives, is corresponding to the defendant A, who is the president, and why is.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.07 2014고정3570

-부산지방법원 2012.08.23 2012고정1320

-수원지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단51677

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.09.05 2014고정168

-의정부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015가합3447