(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.13 2020노1106 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2020.11.13 2020노1106

업무상배임등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative (in-house director) of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) located in B at the time of racing.

The Defendant, around August 25, 2016, concluded a collateral security contract with the Bank of Korea of Victims (hereinafter “victim”) on the obligation to lend money to the victim, provided a factory site owned by the said Company as collateral. On the 26th of the same month, the Defendant provided 12 machinery owned by the said Company as collateral and provided the victim with an additional maximum debt amount of KRW 840,00,000 as collateral, and thus, the Defendant, as the representative of C, had a duty to manage and preserve the said collateral for the mortgagee.

Nevertheless, around March 2018, the Defendant established the right to collateral security and established the right to collateral security with the victim, as seen above, KRW 1,360D and KRW 451,00,000 in total, the appraised value of KRW 2,000 in PUMA TW2600-GL; hereinafter “the instant machinery”).

B sold Company D and removed it from the factory of the above Company, making it considerably difficult to grasp the location of the Company.

As a result, the Defendant concealed the instant machinery that was the object of the victim’s right, obstructed the exercise of the victim’s mortgage, and at the same time violated the duty, acquired property gains equivalent to KRW 451,00,000, which is the sum of the security value of the said machinery, and caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principle, the machinery of this case is not owned by C, but owned by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s exercise of rights constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of rights by selling the machinery of this case. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to interference with the exercise of rights. 2) The relationship between the Defendant and the victim with the public prosecutor (not guilty part of the original judgment) is simple monetary claims and obligations

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.05.30 2016고단3645

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.02.13 2018고단1540

-창원지방법원 2020.05.07 2019고단3947

-창원지방법원 2021.02.03 2019고단3449

-울산지방법원 2018.10.18 2018고단1533