특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
1. The part of the judgment below against Defendant A and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A, in one and half years of imprisonment, Defendant C.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, (1) misunderstanding of the company’s business embezzlement related to shareholders’ dividends, after obtaining the consent of shareholders through a resolution of the shareholders’ general meeting, remitted money under the name of each shareholder’s account, and then re-deposit it to the company, thereby resolving the company’s obligation to pay the dividends. As such, it does not result in a substantial change in the company’s assets, and thus, it did not result in a substantial change in the
shall not be deemed to exist.
(2) No illegal solicitation was made against Defendant C on the ground of the receipt of breach of trust.
In addition, since the date and time of giving shares to Defendant C at the latest was around February 2010, the five-year statute of limitations has expired.
B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2) Improper sentencing by Defendant B: The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
3) Defendant CA did not receive any unlawful solicitation from Defendant A or B in relation to the misunderstanding of the facts and the acceptance of shares by misunderstanding of the legal principles.
Since the time of acquisition of shares is before December 7, 2009, the seven-year statute of limitations has expired.
B) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In order to preserve the right to claim the return of unfair benefits from the position of representative director of the victim company, Defendant A has a duty to preserve necessary bonds, such as provisional seizure, in order to preserve the right to claim the return of unfair benefits from the position of representative director of the victim company.
Even though the victim company was faced with a situation where it was difficult for the victim company to receive unfair benefits from the trustee, Defendant A’s failure to take any preservation measure constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust.
Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged is acquitted.