logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.21 2014고단9346
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, for six months, for six months, and for four months, for each of the defendants C.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the director in charge of the finance affairs, such as the receipt and disbursement of the money of the HG Religious Organization, and the director in charge of overall affairs such as the operation and management of the church, as the director in charge of the affairs of the H church from around 2007 to the Nam-gu Incheon. Defendant B is the director in charge of the finance affairs such as the receipt and disbursement of the money of the H church, and Defendant C is the director in charge of the finance affairs such as the receipt and disbursement of money, the receipt and payment of the money as the director in charge of the HG church from around 2012 to the HG church.

In 2005 to 2008, HG had experienced serious financial difficulties, such as paying approximately KRW 60,000 per month interest on loans of KRW 13.1 billion incurred during the construction of a new HG building.

Therefore, in order to repay part of the loans around May 2012 and resolve the financial difficulties of the Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

On the other hand, Defendant A had a mind to leave the G religious organization L supervisory election conducted around October 2012. Although Defendant A stated that “the candidate for supervisory election shall not use the church finance for election” in the G religious organization doctrine and the “Act on the Election of Supervisory and Supervisory Chairperson,” Defendant A, who is in charge of the finance of the H religious organization for the election, recommended Defendant B and Defendant C to use KRW 50 million out of the above K site borrowed as collateral at Defendant A’s supervisory election cost.

Accordingly, the Defendants, in collusion, violated the duty of care to use the HG properties, including the money borrowed as collateral, for the purpose of resolving the financial difficulties of the H church as a member of each HG association and the head of the party, the management department, and the head of the finance division, for the HG meeting, including the repayment of principal and interest of the loan, and violated the duty of care to use the HG properties, including the money borrowed as collateral.

arrow