특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the legal principles, the frequency of the crime of defraudation against the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) is limited to twice, and there is a interval of about four months between the crime and the crime. Since the unity and continuity of the criminal intent cannot be recognized due to different details of the specific crime, it shall be determined as concurrent crimes of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the Specific Economic Crimes Act”) according to the amount of damage.
However, the lower court deemed that this part of the facts charged as a single comprehensive crime, and that the amount of profit exceeds KRW 500 million, and recognized the crime of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the single comprehensive crime and concurrent crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court determined that each of the instant fraud was a single crime based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated.
2) Comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by each of the above evidence, each of the crime of defraudation of this case constitutes a single and continuous crime, since the Defendant committed a similar act between 4 months and 4 months in order to preserve or conceal the damage of the crime of embezzlement. Thus, it constitutes a single and continuous crime.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as the defendant asserts.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
A) On April 2017, the Defendant received an order from LAB to deliver 230,000 shares of the victimized company in kind from LA and received the said company’s securities card and seal from the said company, and filed an application for delivery of shares in kind.