업무상횡령등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment (two years of imprisonment) of the judgment of the court below against the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unfasible, and the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.
2. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the amount of damage caused by the occupational breach of trust reaches approximately KRW 2.40 million and the total amount of embezzlement is about KRW 16 million; (b) the total supply value of the tax invoice and the total sum table of the sales invoice by false means is about KRW 1.2 billion; (c) the crime of forging and accompanying private documents is committed repeatedly on three occasions; (d) the victim did not agree with the victim; (e) the fact that there is no history of punishment for forging and accompanying private documents; (e) the fact that there is a history of punishment for the crime of forging and accompanying private documents is an unfavorable sentencing ground; (e) the confession of the crime is against the crime; (e) the equity between the case of the crime of embezzlement and the case of concurrent judgment; and (e) the fact that there is no criminal record of a fine or more, except for the above occupational embezzlement.
In full view of the above sentencing factors, in full view of the Defendant’s age, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading to the commission of the crime, and all other matters on the sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence of the lower judgment is deemed reasonable, and the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.
3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: "Application of the Act and subordinate statutes" of the judgment below is "1. Relevant Articles and 355(1) of the Act on Criminal Procedure: The occupation of occupational embezzlement: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; the occupation of the use of each private document of choice of imprisonment: the exercise of each of the above investigation documents under Article 231 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; the occupation of each of the above investigation documents under Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; the occupation of occupational breach of trust of each of the imprisonment options: the issuance of the false choice statement, and the issuance of the false choice statement under Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act.