logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.05 2017노2568
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is a stock company G (hereinafter “G”) without following lawful procedures, such as approval of the board of directors, without the agreement on interest or maturity for payment.

Where it refers to a corporation below, the name of "stock company" shall be attached only to the first time and the latter shall be omitted), H, I and J shall withdraw and use the funds of each company as a tentative payment, so the defendant may be found to have obtained unlawful acquisition intent, and the defendant shall have fully repaid his/her obligations after the fact.

It cannot be viewed differently even if there is no difference.

Even so, the lower court is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of unlawful acquisition and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) from August 24, 2007 to July 31, 2015, the Defendant embezzled KRW 6,963,60,000 through 83 times in total, such as the list of crimes (1) in the name of G from August 24, 200 to July 31, 2015; and (b) from June 8, 2009 to May 3, 2016, the Defendant embezzled KRW 13,736,61,928 over 31 times in total, such as the list of crimes (2) in the name of representative director from April 13, 201 to August 12, 2013 to 10, 2004 to 10,504,501 to 104,507.4,510 to 204,507,501.

B. The summary of the judgment of the court below is that ① the execution details of the provisional payment withdrawn by the defendant were transparent based on objective data, ② the defendant uses the said provisional payment only as business funds necessary for various architectural projects implemented under the name of the individual entrepreneur, and the above projects are carried out from each company.

arrow