업무상횡령등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds of appeal in the grounds of appeal, but withdraws the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first trial of the trial of the party concerned, and only asserts unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal. The Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing was made after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal.
However, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the statement of grounds for appeal, so it shall decide ex officio on whether to impose an unreasonable sentencing.
The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, 240 hours of community service order, 49,866,347, Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order, and 50,783,401 won of collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A: (a) recognized all of the instant crimes in the trial; (b) committed the instant crime in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act; (c) Defendant A had been detained for a considerable period of time at the court below; (d) Defendant A had been living in custody for a considerable period of time; (c) Defendant A appears to have not much profits from the money and valuables acquired as a result of the instant crime in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act; (d) Defendant A dealt with legal affairs related to the application for registration; (e) used the amount of the money and valuables embezzled for a certain period after being provided by the clients for tax payment; (e) Defendant A paid unpaid taxes in relation to the application for registration after the occurrence of the instant crime; and (e) there was no additional damage such as cancellation of the registration dealt with by Defendant A; and (e) Defendant A did not have any criminal record exceeding a fine; and (e) Defendant A