logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.07.12 2013노1452
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant erred in the reorganization of accounts, such as the arrangement of receipts concerning the details of the use of management expenses, while performing duties as a general manager of the Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Carryover (hereinafter “Carryover”), and there was no fact that the Defendant arbitrarily consumed and embezzled management expenses as in the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intention of disposal of the property of another person, which is in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as the ownership of his/her own property. This belongs to the intention of internal deliberation, and where the defendant denies it, the fact constituting such subjective element ought to be proven by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that are relevant to the nature of the object

Therefore, if there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the money was used in the defendant's use of the money, and there is a lot of reliable evidence as to the defendant's use of the money for the personal purpose, it can be inferred that the defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition, in case where the defendant embezzled the money for the defendant's use of the money, under the circumstances where the location or use of the money was unknown, but the money was not revealed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do457 delivered on March 14, 2000). B.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he embezzled management expenses as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

arrow