업무상횡령등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and by a fine of ten million won.
1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of taking advantage of breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, and of the charge of occupational breach of trust in relation to theO retirement allowance (the part corresponding to KRW 14,504,870 paid under the pretext of the honorary retirement payment), and found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the facts charged, and found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of taking advantage of breach of trust among the part not guilty. However, the lower court acquitted of the part of the charge of taking advantage of occupational breach of trust related to theO honorary retirement allowance (the part corresponding to KRW 14,504,870 paid under
In response, the Defendant appealed only to the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor appealed only to the guilty portion and the not guilty portion. As such, among the facts charged in this case, the acquittal portion of the reasons in this case was transferred to the trial together with the remaining guilty portion (the point of occupational breach of trust due to payment of KRW 135,495,130, which is the name of special compensation related to a single crime), but was exempted from the object of public defense between the parties, so the judgment of the court below is not followed and the judgment of the acquittal portion of the reasons in this case is not possible.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (a) is so unreasonable that the Defendant (a prison term of two years, a suspended sentence of three years, a fine of ten million won, a community service for 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the portion of acquittal in the judgment of the court below), the court below acquitted the Defendant on the charge of taking property in breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, but it is recognized that the Defendant received the money in the name of rebates, and it is also difficult to view that the Defendant jointly purchased AK and building and provided a leasing business, such as the Defendant’s changing lawsuit, and there is an error of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the above part
3. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principle.