A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(a) A prosecutor;

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. Defendant

The sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

Defendant is making a confession of the instant crime. Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime or of being punished beyond a fine.

On the other hand, the defendant embezzled total amount of KRW 479,615,00 of the funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation, non-indicted 3 corporation (hereinafter "non-indicted 2 corporation" or "non-indicted 3 corporation"), which he operated, as apartment purchase funds purchased under the name of the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1). The act of occupational embezzlement by the representative director, etc. of the managing body of the company such as the representative director, etc. is likely to undermine transparency in the management of the company, thereby undermining the credibility in the economic system, and undermining the credibility in the economic system. It is necessary to punish the criminal who is highly likely to cause unexpected damage to the persons related to the company, such as shareholders, creditors, employees, etc., and to pay a total amount of KRW 479,615,00.

In order to purchase apartment, the Defendant first borrowed money from the victim non-indicted 3, and thereafter borrowed money from the victim non-indicted 4, the management of the victim non-indicted 3’s company was determined to repay the money borrowed from the victim non-indicted 4, and withdrawn the amount equivalent to KRW 480 million. In fact, the defendant’s spouse non-indicted 5, and Non-indicted 1, the defendant’s spouse claimed that he paid a total of KRW 167 million and KRW 450 million, which Non-indicted 4 paid a total of KRW 450 million.

According to the records, it is recognized that Nonindicted 5 remitted the victim’s non-indicted 5 million won to the victim’s non-indicted 3’s account on July 29, 2009, and KRW 92 million on July 31, 2009, respectively; Nonindicted 4 deposited KRW 300 million on August 31, 2009 with the victim’s △△ Bank account (Account Number 1 omitted); and KRW 150 million on September 7, 2009, respectively.

그러나 ① 피고인은 2009. 6. 4. 95,355,000원을 횡령한 외에도 2009. 10. 1.부터 같은 해 12. 24.까지 피해자들로부터 총 3억 8,400여만 원을 더 횡령하였는데, 피고인의 주장은 위와 같이 3억 8,400여만 원을 횡령하기도 전인 2009. 7. 29.부터 2009. 9. 7.까지 총 6억 1,700만 원을 변제하였다는 것인바 그 주장 자체로 쉽게 납득하기 어렵고, 당시 피고인은 처제 공소외 1 명의의 통장을 개인 통장으로 사용하고 있었으므로 굳이 피해자 공소외 3 회사의 계좌로 6억 1,700만 원을 입금 받을 필요도 없었다. ② 피해자 공소외 3 회사의 금융 거래내역에 의하면, 공소외 4가 입금한 4억 5,000만 원은 피해자 공소외 3 회사의 운영자금으로 사용되었는바, 공소외 4가 입금한 돈은 공소외 4와 피해자 공소외 3 회사 사이의 별도의 거래관계에 의하여 입금된 것으로 보일 뿐 이 사건 횡령금의 변제금으로는 보이지 않는다. ③ 피고인은 공소외 4로부터 피해 회사들에 반환할 돈을 차용하면서 담보로 위 횡령자금으로 마련한 아파트에 근저당권을 설정해 주었다고 주장한다. 피고인이 2009. 11. 27. 처제 공소외 1 명의로 용인시 (주소 1 생략) □□□타운하우스 제◇◇◇동 제☆층 제▽▽▽호의 소유권을 이전받아, 2010. 7. 13. 공소외 4에게 채권최고액 4억 원인 근저당권을 설정하여 주었으나, 위 근저당권의 채무자는 피고인 측이 아닌 피해자 공소외 3 회사로 등기되어 있는바(증거기록 29면), 만약 공소외 4의 송금이 피해자에 대한 횡령금 변제라면 피해자가 아닌 피고인이 채무자로 등기되어야 할 것인데, 피해자가 근저당 채무자로 등기되어 있으므로 공소외 4는 피고인이 아닌 피해자 공소외 3 회사에 대하여 위 송금으로 가지게 된 채권이나 기타 다른 채권에 기해 위 근저당권을 설정한 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

Ultimately, since the above KRW 617 billion deposited in Nonindicted Co. 3 was not deposited in order to recover damage caused by embezzlement, the Defendant’s assertion that the damage suffered by the victimized Co. 3 was recovered is not accepted.

In full view of all the above circumstances, the scope of the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court and the sentencing conditions as seen above, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is with merit, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below shall be ruled as follows after pleading (in case the defendant's appeal is without merit, but the decision of the court below shall be reversed by accepting the prosecutor'

Articles 356 and 355(1) of each Criminal Code (the point of occupational embezzlement)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

Judges Park Jong-gil (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The name prior to the opening is ○○○.

2) The Defendant asserted that Nonindicted 4 repaid the victim Nonindicted Co. 3’s repayment amounting to KRW 600 million even before the date of closing argument in the trial, but finally arranged the arguments as above in the summary of the pleadings submitted on September 29, 2017, which was after the date of closing argument.

3) Of the KRW 200 million, the victim Nonindicted Co. 3’s employees were deposited into the account of Nonindicted Co. 6, and Nonindicted Co. 6 deposited into the victim Nonindicted Co. 3’s △△ Bank account.

Note 4) [Scope of Recommendation] Type 2 (10 million won or more to less than 50 million won) basic area (1 to 3 years)