업무상횡령
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year.
1. The lower court rejected all applications for compensation order filed by each applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the part rejecting the application for each of the above orders for compensation was immediately finalized.
Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of the above compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable.
3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's authority, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor requested the victim under Paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the instant case to change the victim from "D" to "I", and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.
However, the above facts charged are concurrent crimes with the remaining crimes found guilty by the court below under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the remaining parts of the court below's judgment excluding the rejection of the application for compensation order should be reversed
4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the remaining part of the judgment below excluding the rejection of the application for compensation order pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.
[Dao-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is identical to the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, except for changing the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below as seen in the above paragraph (3) of the same Article. Thus, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.