logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2010.12.16 2009노3100
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기) 등
Text

The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

(b).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with regard to the portion of the crime) (1) The embezzlement of A Q research funds by an incorporated association (A) requires a resolution of the board of directors to acquire basic property as a public-service corporation. Since the donation was provided from a funding institution and did not undergo a resolution of the board of directors, it cannot be deemed that the donation of this case belongs to A Q.

A Q did not have any articles of incorporation or organization that reflects the basic matters of the corporation as a human body, and since its incorporation, it did not have held a board of directors or a general meeting since its incorporation.

There is no provision or procedure on the management and settlement of research funds, and the withdrawal of research funds was made as requested by the Defendant’s research team unilaterally, and both were supported only by biotechnology research conducted by A research team, and reported or confirmed the results of the research, and there is no fact that the research fund has been acquired rights to equipment and materials or research outcomes acquired as research funds.

In light of this point, Q cannot be the subject of ownership, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s voluntary use of research funds as another’s property, and it is difficult to view that there exists a substantial consignment relationship between Q and the Defendant solely in charge of the delivery of funds. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the status of keeping another’s property.

(B) In relation to the annexed list of the lower judgment’s judgment, it is generally impossible for the Defendant to purchase an animal or a human ovum through normal trade, and the Defendant has inevitably used the borrowed account to use it as a cost for acquiring such ovum. Therefore, from the borrowed account of 7 persons, such as AX, it is again the borrowed account between AT and BB.

arrow