업무상횡령등
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.
[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] One electronic file, two finter, and one finter, and one finter, which were located in the office of the victim company D (hereinafter “victim company”) due to erroneous determination of the gist of the Reasons for Appeal, were owned by the defendant, and thus, the removal of goods owned by the victim company does not constitute theft.
(M) The Defendant, with the consent of Q in front of the representative director Q of the victim company, deleted electronic records stored in the Defendant’s Nowon-gu computer en bloc.
The defendant ordered the employees of the victim company to delete personal data and illegal software, and the employees arbitrarily deleted electronic records, such as business files stored in seven Nowon-gu computers.
Since then, the defendant and employees did not interfere with the information processing of the victim company by providing all data related to business affairs to the victim company and making best efforts to hand over business affairs, and there was no intention to interfere with the defendant's business.
(M) misunderstanding of facts as to interference with the operation of electromagnetic records, etc. . The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of social service) is too unreasonable.
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the larceny of one electronic rail, one set of flater (HPPP1505), and one construction district set of tools, the court below can sufficiently recognize that the ownership of the above objects was in the victim company at the time of committing the thief, and the statement by the witnessJ of the party in question alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
① Around March 4, 2008, the victim company purchased one HPPP1505 respectively, two straws around March 12, 2008, two straws around January 12, 201, and one straws around January 12, 201.
(No. 114, 124, 152). Before committing the theft of this case, the same shall apply.