(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.10.01 2014고정585

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.10.01 2014고정585

횡령

Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In 2008, the Defendant was requested by the victim E to receive the construction cost of KRW 43 million from the victim E in lieu of the claim for interest on delay from the company of Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a claim of KRW 308,770,000 from the above F in the Defendant’s post account (Account Number G) with the exception of fees through a credit information company; (b) but did not deliver the deposit to the victim; and (c) embezzled the said money by using living expenses, etc. in the place of residence with the mind

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness H and E’s each legal statement (the testimony of the witness is consistent and specific, and it is judged to be reliable. Although the Daejeon District Court testified to the effect that the Defendant transferred the claim for the construction price of this case to the Defendant in the collection money case, the agreement that the Defendant, who was not in a special personal and monetary relationship, claimed that the Defendant transferred the claim without compensation more than KRW 60 million, as evidence for the Defendant’s transfer of the claim, stated that the claim for the construction price of this case was transferred to the Defendant for the purpose of securing the payment of the claim for the loan of KRW 60 million, and even according to the Defendant’s statement, the above transfer is deemed to be false. Thus, it is difficult to assert the Defendant’s assertion. The transfer to the Defendant was contrary to the empirical rule, and it was difficult to carry out the economic situation at the time, and if E transferred the claim of this case to the Defendant, there was no reason for the Defendant to participate in the collection of the claim against the F’s obligor (sexual History) for the most convenient collection of the claim of this case from the Defendant.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.07.02 2014노3027

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.01.23 2016가단7400

-제주지방법원 2021.03.12 2020가단54038

-대전지방법원 2019.02.13 2017가단2349

-대구지방법원안동지원 2014.05.28 2013가단4944