업무상횡령등
All the judgment below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: 2 years of suspended execution, community service, 120 hours, and 2 years of suspended execution in the 6 months of imprisonment: the second instance judgment: 2 years of suspended execution in the 8 months of suspended execution, probation, and confiscation) is too unfasible and unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, this Court tried to examine the two cases of appeal by combining the two cases of appeal by the defendant. The crimes of each case deliberated in the trial by the court in question are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal is established, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment (the point of occupational embezzlement), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the attempted larceny, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant was prosecuted for occupational embezzlement on December 27, 2013 and committed larceny, attempted larceny, and property damage among each of the crimes of this case during the course of trial, and the crime of larceny, etc. is committed. The above larceny, etc., shall be punished by the applicable law, such as destroying the glass of the vehicle and stealing things into the vehicle.