업무상횡령등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s respective arguments together with each of the above arguments are the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant in light of the motive, circumstance, method, etc. of the crime, and the fact that: (a) the Defendant embezzled the oil gift certificates designated to support typhoons in order to support typhoons; (b) used them as gambling funds and repayment of personal debts; and (c) in the process, he/she took money repeatedly by taking advantage of his/her father’s trust with them; and (d) in light of the motive, circumstance, and method of the crime, etc., each of the damage is considerably significant; and (e) the probability of recovering damage is not clear enough to the extent that the Defendant took money repeatedly by taking advantage of his/her father’s trust with them.
On the other hand, the fact that some victims of fraud do not want punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the defendant in the original trial, the defendant is the first offender, and all of their mistakes appear to be recognized and reflected, and the fact that family and workplace club members want to take the preference of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant was subject to a decision on dismissal and a disposition of imposition of approximately KRW 260 million by the Disciplinary Committee; (b) the Defendant’s family relation and economic situation; (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the Defendant was committed; and (d) changes in circumstances after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, the lower court’s punishment appears to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope; and (e) it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is excessively heavy or unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor respectively.