특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment shows the attitude of the defendant, which led to the confession of the crime of this case from the investigative agency, and the defendant and the non-exclusive person who received money from the defendant return the total amount of KRW 1.530 million to the victimized company, and in agreement with the victimized company, the victimized company does not want the punishment against the defendant, there are two daughters who must care for the defendant, and there are not only the parents who must care for the defendant, but also the health conditions of the defendant, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the defendant's primary offender.
However, the Defendant embezzled more than 3.1 billion won in total over 508 times for nine years while serving as the trade division manager of the victimized company, and embezzled and intelligent means, and thus, the commission of the crime is very poor; the Defendant embezzled more than 1.3 billion won out of the embezzled money; the Defendant spent 1.3 billion won out of the embezzled money to an unexploded person as the commission of the company; the remainder money was made out of the purchase cost, such as apartment, sales right, prestigious clothes, furniture, and external vehicles; and the victimized company agreed to the agreement.
However, considering the fact that damage of KRW 1.7 billion has not yet been recovered, and the fact that the damaged company would have suffered financial difficulties due to the instant crime, it is difficult to exempt the Defendant from severe punishment even considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.
In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment. Moreover, considering the reason and the defendant's age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court determined within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines is too unreasonable, even if it is considered that there are various conditions of sentencing as stated in the arguments, such as the reason and the defendant's age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime before and after the crime