(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.05.01 2012노1678

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) 서울북부지방법원 2013.05.01 2012노1678

업무상횡령

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment has become final.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case where the Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal principle asserts that he returned all the proceeds of selling the boundary fences removed from D Corporation, the part of the instant charge of occupational embezzlement, stating that “the Defendant voluntarily used and embezzled the proceeds of the sale in which he received after the sale in scrap metal was kept,” which seriously interferes with the Defendant’s exercise of defense, and thus, cannot be deemed as having been specified in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In fact, the Defendant sold 63.8m of the boundary fence 663.8m from around November of the same year, which began from around October 2011 to around January 201, but was kept in custody for deposit into the head of the apartment management office at the same time as the sales proceeds of the apartment gate, generated in the course of the construction work from around July 201 to around January 2012, the Defendant, without paying the Defendant the sales proceeds of the NAM, deposited approximately KRW 350,000 in the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the apartment management office at the latest on the wind deposited in the head of the head of the apartment management office, and even though the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of KRW 663.8m of the boundary pentS, the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant otherwise was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As seen earlier than erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of 663.8m. removed from D Corporation, and even if the Defendant embezzled the said proceeds, the Defendant made public notice of dismissal using a conclusive expression that the Defendant embezzled the said proceeds, even if at the time, the Defendant was not actively disputing the suspicion of embezzlement at an investigative agency.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2013.02.15 2012고단2469

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2012.10.25 2012고단160

-대구지방법원 2013.10.25 2013노77

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노2732

-대법원 2017.7.18.선고 2017도3414 판결