업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) A list of crimes in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “list of crimes”).
As to the occupational embezzlement listed in Nos. 2 and 2, the Defendant did not settle KRW 1.50,000 as the golf course usage fee on March 28, 2017, as shown in No. 2 of the Crime List No. 2 (this part is claimed in the documents submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal, but it is determined ex officio.
(2) As to each occupational embezzlement other than No. 2 in the crime sight table, the Defendant used the company’s funds or actually used the company’s funds within the scope of the claim for provisional collection against the victimized company, and accounted for the repayment of the claim for provisional payment. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. An ex officio prosecutor following the amendment of a bill of indictment filed an application for the amendment of a bill of indictment with the content that the amount of damage as stated in No. 6 in the list of crimes was KRW 462,904, KRW 11, and the date and time of each crime described in No. 11 and 12 were changed to July 27, 2017, respectively, and the date and time of each crime described in No. 14, 15, and 16 were changed to August 1, 2017, and the applicable provisions of law were changed to “Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act”, and as the case was changed to the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court in relation to the revised facts charged.
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The ex officio determination of the occupational embezzlement set forth in No. 2 in the list of crimes is from two parts of the evidence of the victimized company, which is submitted by the prosecutor.