업무상횡령등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A 1) was used by the Defendant for personal use together with 40 litress and 60 litress in the temporary border Nos. 1 and 3 of the annexed crime sight table No. 40 litress and 60 litress in the temporary border No. 8 of the annexed crime sight table No. 1, but there is no fact that
B) As to the crime of neglecting duties in the holding of the court below, the defendant neglected to work for a certain time, such as late attendance, early absence, or absence of navigation, but there is no absence from work without permission. However, as to the crime of neglecting duties in the holding of the court below, there is no document stating the matters concerning the operation of the ship which is operated in this case as to the crime of preparing false official documents, the crime of uttering of false official documents, and the crime of uttering of false official documents, not documents stating the period of commuting to and from work, working conditions, working hours, etc., and there is no fact that the defendant falsely prepared the operation log of this case.
In addition, the number of navigation days indicated in No. 2 a year of crime sight table 8 is prepared by E, which is charged by the defendant, and it is not a document prepared by the defendant. D) With respect to fraud in the judgment of the court below, there is no fact that the defendant deceptions D staff to prepare an order for overtime work in order to receive overtime work hours, and it is not a criminal intent to receive overtime work hours. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence (one-month suspended sentence of imprisonment for a term of six months) imposed on Defendant B is too unfased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the ground for appeal by the first ex officio as to Defendant A.
In the first instance, the prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment with regard to the charge of fraud, and the subject of the trial was changed by the court's permission.
(b).