beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.08.13 2015노809

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등

Text

The judgment below

Of those, the guilty part against Defendant A and the not guilty part.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: In the lower court’s misapprehension of the legal principle and unreasonable sentencing 1), Defendant A refers to “Defendant” without indicating the name of the Defendant in each of the pertinent items of the Defendant, and “Defendants” in the same division. Under the current situation where the provisional payment against the company exists in an amount calculated by deducting the value-added tax amount from I on the transactional relationship in order to appropriate the repayment of the claim, and appropriated the Defendant for the payment of the company’s claim against the company. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment recognizing the crime of occupational embezzlement was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant’s crime of occupational embezzlement was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two

B. Prosecutor: The lower court acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). However, the lower court acquitted Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). However, the lower court acquitted Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). The lower court acquitted Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) on the grounds that “G has paid management expenses in its name while using the 1 to 4th floor of H building, and entered into a sublease contract, and the Defendant’s personal business establishment was never known at all.”

On the other hand, G is one billion won.