(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노4381 | 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) 대구지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노4381

횡령

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the victim F provided the defendant with KRW 50 million for equipment costs and the payment of agreed money to the defendant, the defendant embezzled by using it at will while keeping it in custody; and (b) the defendant was allowed to use the said money after the fact.

This does not affect the establishment of a crime due to the absence of circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court did not specify the victim’s “50 million won” in the court of the lower court and the prosecution only for the use of equipment costs.

The defendant gave KRW 50 million to the defendant to use the equipment costs for construction business operators as the subject of consultation, and the rest is allowed to be used for personal purposes.

“The victim’s police statements made to the effect that it is difficult to deem the credibility of the victim’s above court and prosecutor’s statement to be rejected solely with the victim’s police statements, ② the victim was negative in paying the whole equipment cost to the construction business operator, and the issue of consultation on equipment cost was deemed to have been entrusted to the defendant. The equipment cost to be paid by the defendant, even according to the payment form prepared between H on May 26, 2015, does not exceed KRW 33,612,600,000, and the equipment cost to be paid by the defendant does not exceed KRW 50 million. In addition, the victim, even after the victim knew that the defendant used the above 50 million for personal purposes, was specifically dissatisfied with the victim, or did not request the return thereof. In light of the circumstances, the victim specified the above KRW 50 million for the purpose of use of the equipment cost.

It is difficult to view that the defendant has given considerable discretion to use KRW 50 million to the defendant.

(3) any point determined.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.06.15 2018노264

-인천지방법원 2018.07.06 2018노759

-인천지방법원 2016.07.06 2016고단2759

-부산지방법원 2016.11.25 2016노3381

-부산지방법원 2013.07.05 2013고합78