횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Improper sentencing of the gist of reasons for appeal (the punishment of the court below shall be four months of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of community service);
2. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; (b) the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the sentencing guidelines, considering the circumstances after the crime, given that a criminal conciliation was established by paying KRW 16 million to the victim, but the remaining damage was not repaid by paying KRW 3 million among them, taking account of the unfavorable circumstances: (a) the violation of the crime; and
The instant lease agreement concluded between November 30, 2012 and April 48, 2012 to pay the lease fee of KRW 76,631,376 in total each month for a period of 1,59,487, and the Defendant appears to have paid the lease fee in good faith for a period of time until embezzlement of each machine around October 2015.
In addition, after the crime of this case was committed, the principal and interest of the above contract guarantor (F) was fully paid to the victim company, and the defendant and the victim agreed to pay 16 million won directly to the guarantor at the time of criminal mediation by the prosecution.
The Defendant repaid a total of three million won at the lower court, and paid a total of ten million won at the trial on March 31, 2017; KRW 250,000 on September 26, 2017; KRW 630,000 on December 27, 2017; and KRW 13,40,000 on January 5, 2018.
As such, since the defendant constantly endeavored to recover damage, damage equivalent to the amount was recovered, the sentencing condition of the court below was changed, and the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.
3. As the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is ruled again after pleading as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.