logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.24 2017고합403
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) that sells new requisition, is a person in charge of overall management of the business affairs of the company.

On September 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract for inventory transfer and payment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a notary public on the 3 and 4th floor of Busan Metropolitan Government C building with the victim E (hereinafter “E”) in the law firm D office, under which he/she is in custody upon delivery of E, and thereby, entered into a contract for inventory transfer and payment (hereinafter “the instant contract”). On September 23, 2015, the Defendant received 65,718 legs owned by E from the Busan Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “the instant new contract”) from the distribution warehouse of B located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government F, for E in accordance with the instant contract.

On October 15, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 60,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 from H’s warehouse located in the third floor of the building of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “H”), after concluding a sales contract to sell KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

2. The key prosecutor of the instant case asserts that the ownership was reserved to E even after the instant contract was delivered by B on the premise that the instant contract was a consignment sales contract, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of embezzlement since he received the instant new contract from E as a representative director with the intent of embezzlement and sold part of the instant new contract to B and H.

In order to accept such assertion, it is without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant was in the position of “storage another’s property” by delivering the instant new requisition to the Defendant according to the instant contract.

arrow