logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.01.17 2013고단1114
횡령
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around January 3, 2011, the Defendant entered into a consignment contract with the victim E and the former North Korea Chang-gun, and sold for six-year period of ginseng extracted from the victim E and the former North Korea at nine places, namely, “D” (hereinafter “D”), and then, entered into a sales contract with the exception of sales commission.

The Defendant, from around that time to around November 201, kept for the victim the money excluding sales commission out of the ginseng sales proceeds from around October 6, 2011 to around April 201, and embezzled a total of approximately KRW 70 million by arbitrarily consuming the money to the victim.

2. The key issue is that the Defendant did not settle the sales commission out of the ginseng sales proceeds, and the Defendant asserts that the entire amount was not owned by E, and that there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits since the payment was not finalized due to disputes over sales commission, etc.

The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged is "part of the E's investigative agency and court statement", and the remainder is supporting it, and therefore, I look at the credibility of E's statement.

3. Facts of recognition on records;

A. The type E of ginseng subject to consignment, including the complaint, consistently stated that “six-year ginseng” is subject to consignment sale, but the investigative agency including the complaint, appeared as a witness on the 8th trial date and stated that “all six-year ginseng is mixed with five (5) years, five (4) years, and four (4) years,” and the statement about the ginseng subject to consignment sale was not consistent.

B. 1) Sales Fee 1) E consistently stated that, since the investigation agency, there was no prior setting of the unit price of sales commission between the Defendant and the Defendant, while there was no agreement between the Defendant, the Defendant did not know of the sales commission out of the sales amount and then remitted the sales commission after deducting the sales commission. At the time of the accusation, the Defendant stated that the unit price was 300 won

G.

arrow