업무상배임등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and contradictory to the victim company, and that the representative director of the victimized company has agreed smoothly with the victimized company, and that the victimized company has been working together with the victimized company while carrying out its business as the Defendant, and that the Defendant sought a preference against the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant is not expected to have a large number of gains from the crime of this case, and that there is no record of punishment, other than the punishment of fines, due to the crime of this case.
On the other hand, however, it is unfavorable that the defendant worked for a long-term damaged company and the damaged company without permission to produce the same kind of competitive product as the company's default and to establish the same type of business to produce and sell the actual competitive product.
The court below set a sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, and again presented a written application to the representative director of the victimized company seeking a preference against the defendant in the trial court, but this is reflected in the sentencing hearing process of the court below, and thus there is no change in the conditions of the sentencing.
In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theories, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.