logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.05.02 2012노1533
횡령
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is against the legal sentiment that ① the defendant did not act as a broker for a contract for the creation of art products between D and E (hereinafter “E”), but in light of the fact that the victim affixed his seal to E in the written contract (in the 7 pages of investigation record), the defendant has been acting as a broker for the contract. ② The testimony of the original witness I is not reliable, and the testimony of the original witness D is not reliable, and the testimony of the original witness D is contrary to the legal sentiment that the testimony of the original witness D is insufficient to understand it as well as to understand it as well as to understand it as well. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the

2. Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the record and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows. ① Except for the circumstances indicated in the reasoning of the court below, D has brought a civil lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court No. 2011 Ghana 2301021) against the Defendant and the Defendant’s father F (the representative of H’s research institute) and has won a favorable judgment (No. 43 of the trial record), which proves that D and the Defendant had sales contract for art between D and the Defendant, and that there was no sales contract between D and E, and ② under this case’s contract (Investigation Record No. 7 of the Investigation Record), it is difficult to determine this by the above statement alone as to who is the party to the contract because the seller is the buyer, and it is difficult to determine who is the party to the contract, and in light of the fact that the witness and J witness are written in the application for deliberation on the plan for installing art food, which was submitted by the E, the Defendant’s delivery of the goods in form and form, as stated in the contract.

I think that they receive E-the-art money.

arrow