특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. Of the facts charged in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the portion of the total of KRW 625,468,123, and the sum of KRW 625,725, total of the total of KRW 121,725, total of KRW 52,628,123, which was kept in custody by a customer as stated in the attached list of crimes Nos. 509-546,56, and 560-567 of the judgment of the court below among the facts charged in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of this case, such as the total of KRW 72,840,00, and general learning sites, which were kept in custody by a customer, constitutes
However, in this case where only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion, the aforementioned innocence portion was excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties and was actually excluded from the object of trial because the prosecutor did not file an appeal, and there is no other matter to be examined and determined ex officio.
Therefore, this court shall follow the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as to the portion of innocence, and only the portion of conviction among the judgment below shall be determined as follows.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. The crime of this case was committed on the part of the defendant for about two years and four months by using the sum of KRW 2630 million, which was collected from the customer while operating the Seodaemun-gu branch of the victim company for his own living expenses and office operation expenses, etc. The crime of this case is considerably poor in light of the period, frequency, amount, etc. of the crime, and the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is reasonable, but the defendant has up to the present day.