logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.10 2016노5896
횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant car leased by the Defendant under the name of the Defendant Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant: (a) actually occupied and kept the instant car in the name of F; and (b) the Defendant only lent the instant car in the name of E so that F can lease the instant car under the name of F; and (c) did not keep the instant car, and thus, cannot be deemed the subject of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of the embezzlement of this case with the purport that the Defendant conspireds with A to deliver the said car to F immediately after the receipt of the instant car, and embezzled it.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the allegation in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s assertion”.

The circumstances as shown in the lower court’s reasoning and the part of each F’s statement in the suspect interrogation protocol (No. 38 No. 5 of the evidence list) and the suspect interrogation protocol (No. 40 of the evidence list) prepared by the prosecutor prepared by the police officer of each evidence that the lower court duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as long as the Defendant did not have the signature and seal of F, and the Defendant did not consent, the lower court, despite having no admissibility of evidence, has adopted and investigated each of the above evidence as evidence

However, it is sufficient to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged of this case even with the remaining evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, except for each of the above evidences which are not admissible as seen below.

Therefore, the above misunderstanding of legal principles is not affected by the judgment below.

arrow