beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.10 2015노706

업무상횡령

Text

Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant B is not guilty.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not bring cash sales money to private uses as shown in the instant facts charged, such as the attached list of crimes. The Defendant is a single food house in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G where H and Defendant B work together (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

(2) The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (In-depth or incomplete hearing) was released out of the Republic of Korea to repair the instant land saving machine due to a breakdown, and the Defendant himself did not take it out for embezzlement.

The first instance court found the defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement of the land saving machine of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and incomplete hearing.

C. In full view of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of legal principles) of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement on February 2013 (the fact-finding and the employee’s statement of the instant restaurant), it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B embezzled the gambling house that was kept in custody in the instant restaurant underground room on February 2, 2013. Nevertheless, the first instance court that acquitted Defendant B of his occupational embezzlement on February 2013 was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. (2) In full view of Defendant B’s statement of Defendant B’s business interference (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of legal principles), it can be recognized that Defendant B interfered with the victim’s business by transmitting a false text message that the instant restaurant did not operate any more.

Nevertheless, the first instance court which acquitted the obstruction of business has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

3) The sentencing of the first instance court on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won is too unhued and unfair).

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

(a)be prosecuted in a criminal trial;