특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant guilty on the part where the defendant embezzled total of KRW 220 million against the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim") jointly with Co-defendant B (hereinafter "B"), and on the part where the defendant embezzled solely against the damaged company, the defendant acquitted on the defendant on the part of the attached Table 25 and 28 of the judgment of the court below, and found the remainder of the facts charged.
As to this, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, and the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which is not guilty is transferred to the trial in accordance with the principle of no appeal by the principle of no appeal by the court below, but that part is already left from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be judged to that part.
Therefore, the scope of the trial against the defendant is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of mistake 1) Victim C (hereinafter “victim”)
(2) The appellate court for the embezzlement (excluding the part concerning joint criminal conduct with B) of the case shall decide without any need to decide whether the grounds for ex officio examination are legitimate, 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 matter that is not the grounds for ex officio examination, it may be the object of the trial only where it is stated in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period. However, it is see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8488, May 31, 2007, even if it is not included in the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do848, Feb. 26,