특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.
The judgment below
(2).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts related to the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine had a claim for the transfer price of stocks against the victimized company by transferring the Defendant’s shares to the KCAD (hereinafter “damage Company”).
Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant cannot be deemed as occupational embezzlement in using the damaged company’s money for personal purposes within the scope of the amount of
B. A prosecutor 1) Even though the Defendant alleged a mistake of facts related to fraud was found to have acquired money from the victims, the lower court acquitted the victims of this part of the charges.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application with this court for changes in indictment with the content that deletes the part of the occupational embezzlement of the court below from Nos. 1 to Nov. 14, 2012 among the charges of occupational embezzlement, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.
Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the conviction of occupational embezzlement cannot be maintained as it is.
However, it is still subject to determination, such as mistake of facts by the defendant and the prosecutor.
3. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was the representative director of the Defendant and the Defendant.
E was the chief of the statements made by the prosecution and the damaged company accounting department
G arbitrarily embezzled by using the money recorded in the list of crimes in the original judgment, which the Defendant kept for the victimized company on the grounds of the evidence, such as the statement made by the prosecution, details of transactions related to the victimized company, etc. as stated in the original judgment (excluding the money recorded in the list of crimes, which was not subject to the adjudication due to changes in indictments).
The recognition was recognized.
The judgment below
The court below is justified.