업무상횡령등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) The date of birth of W, which submitted the document of confirmation of facts No. 2 and the document of confirmation of facts of the judgment of the court below is different from the date of birth of W, which was submitted the document No. 2 and the document of confirmation of facts of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below. The above W was left on June 16, 2006, and it was transferred to B and resided in Ulsan Nam-gu around July 3, 2017, so it is not entitled to receive the village development fund. The above W asserted that he received KRW 600,000 from the account under the husband AG who is entitled to receive the above fund, but it appears that the said Fund was paid to the same person. Accordingly, even though the W of the judgment of the court below was 2 W No. 2 in the year of the judgment of the court below, the defendant made a false statement as if he paid KRW 600,000,000 to the above person, and embezzled it on duty.
B. Defendant 1) Of the crime of mistake of facts (as to the part on the charge of oil) occupational embezzlement
In relation to the claim, the Defendant actually disbursed KRW 1.2 million to attach banners.
When the defendant accounts for the expenses for the installation of banner, etc., he/she actually disbursed such expenses: Provided, That he/she prepared the settlement details without attaching evidentiary documents, and prepared the settlement details, and did not arbitrarily handle expenses in an excessive manner and embezzled.
B) In relation to paragraph (b) of the crime of occupational embezzlement, distribution of village development funds is called C Development Council (hereinafter “instant Council”).
The defendant was led by the executive members of the community development fund, and the defendant only played the role to confirm whether he is entitled to receive the list, and there were double copies of resident registration which are evidential documents at the time of the second execution of the community development fund, and there were changes in the name of the double person because it is difficult to re-examine the circumstances.