logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.07 2016노817
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) and the part of the “stock company” under Defendant B and Defendant C are omitted, and when referring both Defendant B and Defendant C together, the part of the “stock company” is entered as “Defendant Company”.

There was no intention to issue a tax invoice to Defendant A, the representative director of the Defendant Company, not a false processing transaction, but a real transaction.

Even if the transaction between the Defendant Company constitutes a processing transaction, Defendant A had a profit-making objective.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) In light of the fact that the funds of the part B of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) are personal funds of the Defendant A, the reasons why the funds were loaned to M and P are due to the joint interest relationship between the Defendant A and M, and the payment of the interest was made through lawful procedures and accounting, and all of the interest was paid, the Defendant A had the intention of embezzlement or to obtain illegal acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The transaction between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company was not a false processing transaction, but a real transaction, and there was no intention to issue a tax invoice to Defendant A, the representative director of the Defendant Company, without supplying goods.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) to Defendant A and the part on the Defendant Company 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows. The Defendant A extended to seven times as follows: ① for profit, and ② for Doz.

arrow