업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 50,00,000 won (attached Table 10,000 won) remitted from the account, a corporation, D (hereinafter “D”) to the Defendant account on August 18, 201, is a provisional payment, and the Defendant deposited KRW 50,00,000 with D’s account on June 22, 2015 and repaid all of them. Since the Defendant was transferred from D account to the Defendant account on October 23, 2013, the amount was KRW 5,00,000,000 on January 16, 2014; KRW 15,00,000,000,000 on January 23, 2014; KRW 25,000,000 on January 23, 2014 (attached Table 32,41, etc. of the judgment of the court below) and all of the Defendant paid to each of the above Defendant cannot be established as embezzlement.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal.
A prosecutor has withdrawn the part of the judgment of the court below among the facts charged at the time of the trial, and embezzled KRW 60 times, 369,077,590." This court permitted it (the facts charged in this case constitutes a blanket crime where a single and continuous criminal act is repeated against the same victim for a certain period of time, and the application for the amendment of the indictment in this case is recognized as having the identity of the facts charged). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.
B. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is about the facts charged in the annexed Table 10, 32, 41, and 42 of the judgment of the court below, and the part 32, 41, and 42 of these are withdrawn by
On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.