업무상횡령등
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant is the defendant 1-A and 1-B of the judgment of the court below.
On January 7, 2016, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement as of November 30, 2012 and November 20, 2013 among the charges of this case against the Defendant on January 7, 2016, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment.
Accordingly, the Defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing. The prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the acquittal.
The trial prior to remand is not guilty of the crime of embezzlement on November 30, 2012 and November 20, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case. As to the violation of the Social Welfare Business Act, each of the crimes in the instant case is established each time when subsidies are paid for the purpose other than the original purpose. Accordingly, the statute of limitations has expired for the crime committed prior to December 20, 207.
In light of the above part of the facts charged in violation of the Social Welfare Business Act, not guilty of the rest of the facts charged, and the judgment of guilty of the rest of the facts charged was made that six months of imprisonment with prison labor and six months of imprisonment with labor for the crimes before September 10, 201, which were the crimes before the final judgment
Accordingly, regarding the guilty portion, the prosecutor dismissed the acquittal portion and the acquittal portion respectively.
The Supreme Court held that the portion of conviction and acquittal prior to the remand of the charges against the Defendant was justifiable, but with respect to the acquittal portion, each of the instant subsidies in relation to the use of each of the instant subsidies in a single comprehensive crime by the person entitled to the subsidies.
It is reasonable to see that the crime of violation of each of the above social welfare businesses is in progress from the time the crime was completed. Since the facts raised on August 12, 2014, before the statute of limitations for the pertinent crime, the indictment of this case, which was filed on August 12, 2014, is obvious in the record, it cannot be deemed that the statute of limitations has expired, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes the time when the