logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.06 2013노3024
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

In light of the cruitruital and cruital delivery to the defendant normally, since each of the above vessels and the company's balance of the deposit account and the movable assets in the company are not owned by the defendant, the crime of embezzlement cannot be established. Even if the balance of each of the above deposit accounts and movable assets are owned by the defendant, the defendant cannot be recognized as the intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition. However, the first instance court recognized it and found the defendant guilty of both the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in its judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The punishment sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing to the defendant (five years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the accused is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In order to avoid the appearance of direct transaction with farmers and operation of lines and lines with the complainant company, the defendant, as an employee of the complainant company, received Cheongbu from the complainant company in the form of provisional payment or advance payment, purchased Cheongbu, supplied it to the complainant company, and established a personal business entity "I" on November 1, 2007 in the name of the complainant company, and operated the personal business entity "M" on January 1, 2009, and operated the profits in three accounts, such as the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the defendant, I, and M, and there is a defect that the complainant company changed the above personal business entity into the agricultural company, and all of the above personal business entities are in the name of its own company.

arrow