업무상횡령등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant has diverted part of the subsidy for child meal service as operating expenses, but the defendant did not use it individually and did not have the intent of embezzlement, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The appellate court for a judgment on a mistake of facts shall, if the appeal is lawful with respect to the grounds for ex officio examination, judge without any need to examine whether the grounds for appeal are submitted or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal. However, with respect to any grounds that are not the grounds for ex officio examination, the appeal may be filed only in cases where the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, and it is not included in
A judgment may be rendered ex officio.
On the other hand, the defendant or defense counsel has not been included in the statement of grounds of appeal in the appellate court.
Even if there are grounds for appeal, such as the assertion contained in the statement, cannot be deemed to exist.
(2) According to the records, the Defendant received a written notification of the receipt of the trial records from the court on July 25, 2016, and the Defendant submitted the written statement of grounds for appeal stating only unfair sentencing on August 12, 2016, and simultaneously filed the written request for the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on August 19, 2016, and the Defendant received a delivery of the decision to dismiss the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel from the court on August 19, 2016, and on November 2, 2016, the Defendant received the said one-mentioned decision on November 2, 2016.
It is recognized that there has been an assertion of mistake of facts such as paragraph.