특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A.
The progress of the lawsuit and the process of the trial of this court ① The prosecutor shall state the defendant A as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap26, 2012Gohap56(combined), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (i) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) (ii) the urban development project of Pyeongtaek Qu district, (iii) the construction of T apartment, (iv) the loan of V funds, and the original name of K is "K corporation," and the "stock
The name of another stock company below shall also be written in the same manner.
In relation to cancellation of a pledge, violation of special law (Embezzlement), violation of special law (Embezzlement), (i) related to sale price of Y real estate, (ii) related to L financing lending, (iii) relation to double payment of M Part payment), violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, (iv) violation of special law on the urban development project in the Pyeongtaek Qgu Urban Development Project in the Pyeongtaek Qgu metropolitan area (Misappropriation), (v) violation of special law on the apartment construction project in the case of Defendant C, and (v) violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act.
② Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the charge of violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) due to the cancellation of K pledge, ii) violation of the Special Economic Act (Embezzlement) with respect to L loan, iii) violation of the Special Economic Act with respect to double payment of intermediate payment (Embezzlement), and convicted the remainder and the facts charged against Defendant B and C, respectively. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the convicted portion, unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal, i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the acquitted portion, and misunderstanding of facts with respect to the acquitted portion, and unfair sentencing with respect to Defendant A as the grounds for appeal. (3) The lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal with respect to the acquitted portion against Defendant A among the judgment below, and reversed the guilty portion against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B, and the part against Defendant C due to the change of the subject matter subject to an application for changes in the indictment following the permission