logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2016.07.13 2016고단209
업무상횡령등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant Social Welfare Foundation C shall be punished by a fine of 2,00.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. A. As a part of a profit-making business, a social welfare foundation C is established for the purpose of establishing and operating a medical center for senior citizens at actual expenses, and is operating a “F unemployed", which is a long-term sanatorium for senior citizens, in Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, as a part of a profit-making business. The Defendant, from May 2009, was a general manager of the foregoing F unemployed. From around the beginning of the beginning of the year of 2013, he was in charge of the administration and accounting of the said F unemployed as the secretary general.

On June 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared a false labor contract as if he was employed by the Defendant’s friendship B as a member of the F unemployed; and (b) intended to embezzled the operating expenses of the victim’s corporation, which was kept in business as the benefits of B.

On July 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) remitted KRW 1,69,020 to B’s cooperation account managed by the Defendant; and (b) voluntarily disbursed cash at around that time; and (c) embezzled total of KRW 20,216,200 over 11 times from July 10, 2013 to May 23, 2014; and (d) used profits generated from profit-making businesses of social welfare corporations for purposes other than the operation of social welfare facilities established by corporations or corporations.

B. In the court of Jinju Branch 202 of the Changwon District Court Decision 303 on August 25, 2015, the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness of the case, such as occupational embezzlement, etc. against 2015 senior 366 of the court, the Defendant was not involved in the determination of wages for H employed as a manager of the building of the FTT, and ③ the Defendant was investigated by an investigative agency on the above Defendant case and referred to as the president, not G.

The purport of “..........”

arrow