logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2019.01.22 2017고정480
업무상횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the president from January 2012 to April 2013, was in general in charge of the management and execution of the funds of the said small-scale farming team from April 2013 to June 2013, which were organized by farmers who live in the farming house for the purpose of increasing their income through joint production, joint shipment, etc.

In February 13, 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 2 million from February 9, 2012 to May 13, 2013, by arbitrarily consuming KRW 15,050,00 in total for six times, as shown in the attached list of crimes, when he/she transferred his/her deposit account (Account Number E) and sealed his/her seal and kept it for the author. In February 13, 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 2 million out of the operating funds deposited in the said deposit account to F, who is not the author group, for personal purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (the time specified for the receipt of settlement money for the withdrawal from the small team), investigation report (the statement hearing report filed by an accusers related to whether the settlement money is received);

1. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition of deposits. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to a lack of reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. However, if the defendant did not properly explain his/her whereabouts or use of money in his/her custody even if there is no money entrusted by him/her, it can be inferred that the defendant wrongfully consumed and embezzled it.

arrow