업무상횡령
The judgment of the first instance is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) sentenced by the first instance court, the Defendant asserts that the above sentence is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.
2. We examine both the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.
The defendant deposited KRW 120,000 for the recovery of damage, and deposited KRW 25,00,000 in addition to the appellate court, and the defendant led to the confession of the crime, and the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in sentencing is to be considered.
On the other hand, the victim who was judged to suffer from a cerebral disability due to a traffic accident has lost a considerable opportunity for appropriate treatment immediately after the accident, which is an medically important time due to the embezzlement of insurance money of the defendant, and caused serious damage to his/her life in a permanent disability. ② Even if the defendant's deposit of the above amount can be temporarily resolved due to the occurrence of the victim's economic difficulty, it cannot be said that the above permanent disability can not be recovered or that the damage equivalent to the above permanent disability can not be recovered on the basis of the embezzlement. ③ Although the defendant is responsible for protecting and educating the victims of the her old age who had been born in the socially weak layer as the head of childcare center, it is hard to view that the defendant has a heavy legal responsibility for the her life in the form of money, which is not the child care center and the ward, and it is hard to say that the defendant is too heavy.
Therefore, this point is pointed out.