업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant occupational embezzlement and determined that each embezzlement constituted a single crime, thereby aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.
However, the Defendant’s act of occupational embezzlement of this case, as a business director of the victim company, embezzled the amount of supply received from the customer while engaging in the above company’s business, sales management and money collection business, by receiving money from the bank account in the name of the Defendant or the bank account in the name of H company established by the Defendant, and using it at will, etc.
It is reasonable to see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005). Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
[Re-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below (Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Application of the law is as stated in the applicable column of the judgment below.
1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 356 of the pertinent Act and Articles 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (in general, the choice of imprisonment) recognize and reflects his/her mistake, and part of the amount of damage can be recovered with the deposit of KRW 100 million that the defendant delivered to the victim company.