업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
Judgment ex officio
(a) Several business embezzlements;
Even if the legal interests from damage are uniform, the form of a crime is identical, and if it is recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that the act of 31 times embezzlement recorded in the facts charged is a single crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006; 2012Do7328, Mar. 27, 2014). (b) In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the record, the defendant’s 31th embezzlement recorded in the facts charged is deemed to be a single legal interest, the form of a crime is identical, and a series of acts attributable to the realization of a single criminal intent, and thus constitutes a single crime of embezzlement.
(1) While the defendant is in office as an employee of the victimized person, he has committed embezzlement as stated in the facts charged while managing the funds of the injured person.
2. The above funds are the machinery payments received by the injured party from customers and are in the nature of the money.
③ The Defendant embezzled funds with gambling funds.
④ It seems that no circumstance exists to cut off the criminal intent during the period of crime.
(c)
However, the lower court held that the 31-time embezzlement as stated in the facts charged is in the relationship of substantive concurrent crimes.
Based on the judgment of Article 38 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code, the punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code was determined.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes.
3. In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing, on the grounds that the lower court’s judgment ex officio reversals the above Paragraph (2). It is so decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is two times the number of offenses in the judgment of the court below.