업무상횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of a political party have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.
The fact that the Defendant appears to have been aware of the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to the difficult financial situation of C, and that there is no personal benefit, and that it is the first offender, etc., are favorable to the Defendant.
On the other hand, in this case, health insurance premiums and national pension premiums that the defendant did not pay for the original purpose and embezzled are for the operation of a sound social insurance system and for the minimum standard of living for workers.