logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.23 2016노4802
횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant purchased the same issue of shares during the period in which the Defendant left the market, etc., the Defendant’s purchase of shares equivalent to KRW 7,985,000 with a deposit in one of the securities accounts can be deemed as a stock investment for the purpose of C, a truster. The Defendant’s defense counsel held that the Defendant’s single bank account in which the C’s investment deposit was kept, was maths account, in which the interest on loans can be automatically withdrawn within the limit of the maximum amount, and thus, the amount equivalent to KRW 7.985,00 was automatically withdrawn for other purposes.

Even if the defendant had the intent to obtain unlawful profits,

I also asserts that it cannot be said that there is no provision.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, at a place where it is difficult to know the place for the early May 2013, 2013, made an investment by posting a phone to the victim C to lend money to the victim C.

The fee shall be paid at the time of profits.

The lending money is to make a profit by August 2013, which is three months after the date of the lending.

“The meaning of “” is to the effect that it is 2013 under the pretext of stock investment from the injured party.

5. From July 1 to July 17 of the same month, the sum of KRW 36,00,000,000 was transferred to one bank account (Account Number: D) under the name of the Defendant and stored for the victim. At that time, the victim used KRW 7,985,00,000, out of the amount of KRW 36,000,00 received from the injured person, as personal matter, such as interest on the Defendant’s obligation.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

B. The lower court, in light of the Defendant’s share transaction form, deemed that the purchase of shares on June 3, 2013 was one’s own share investment act, and at the time, the Defendant’s single bank account is the M&S account.

arrow