업무상횡령
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment of one year for Defendant A and six months for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendants divided and reflected their mistakes, Defendant A did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, Defendant B did not have any history of criminal punishment, and the Defendants paid KRW 100 million to G to the company when they were in the trial.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the amount of embezzlement is very large to KRW 830,00,000, not most of the damage reimbursement, and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.
3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.