특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.
The summary of the grounds for appeal appealed on the ground that the defendant is too unreasonable because he was sentenced to punishment of the lower court (nine years of imprisonment).
However, in addition to the reasons for the above unfair appeal for sentencing, the defendant's defense counsel shall submit the summary of his/her oral argument on January 18, 2017, the summary of his/her oral argument on March 22, 2017, and 2017
4.5. The summary of the oral argument in the third column of the oral argument asserted that the facts of the crime as stated in Paragraph 1 as stated in Paragraph 2 of the ruling were erroneous, and the facts of the crime as stated in Paragraph 3 of the ruling were erroneous, or there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts of the crime.
According to the records, on November 22, 2016, the defendant received a notice of receipt of the record of trial from the court below, and appointed a defense counsel on November 29, 2016, and the defendant submitted a statement of reasons for appeal on December 8, 2016. Among the reasons for appeal, "" was indicated in the column on which the ground of unfair appeal was based for sentencing, but no indication was made in the column on which the ground of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was made, and even in the document written to be attached, the summary of the reasons for appeal was written only as "unfair sentencing", and the content of the document was also written to be stated as "the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable," and efforts were made to conclude that evidence not disclosed in the court below and agreement not deemed in the court below.
In order to seek correction, I would like to supplement the reasons for appeal after the appointment of a counsel.
In fact, “The Defendant and the defense counsel was present at the first trial date on December 22, 2016 at the trial date and stated the reasons for appeal,” and “The Defendant and the defense counsel caused the instant appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing of the Defendant.”
"It is recognized that the appellate brief stated a summary of the grounds for appeal."
Therefore, the above arguments cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal, as they were asserted after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal.
B. The ex officio determination of Paragraph 2 below with respect to the act of occupational embezzlement listed in Paragraph 1(a) of the ruling is made, even if I ex officio examine this issue.