(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(Recognized Crime in Occupational Breach of Trust)

(c) Occupational embezzlement (a name of recognized crime, occupational breach of trust);

(d) Acquisition of stolen property;

(e) Fraud;

(f) Occupational breach of trust

2. b. e. B

3. D. C

Law Firm E (for Defendant C)

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of one year against a crime set forth in Article 2(b).

An appeal against the prosecutor against the defendant A and C, the appeal against the defendant A and the first offense of the judgment of the court below.

All Defendant B’s appeals are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (public prosecutor, defendant C)

1) Defendant A’s act is in a relationship between occupational breach of trust and fraud, since Defendant C’s act is in a relationship between occupational breach of trust and fraud, as it is the property acquired by Defendant C’s criminal act and the stolen property, as it is the property acquired by fraud, which is the property acquired by Defendant C’s criminal act.

2) In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant C did not confirm the fact that Defendant C was in a state of personal history and was aware of the fact that Defendant C had been re-employed in the U.S. Steel Co., Ltd., Defendant C was aware of the fact that the said steel plates were stolen.

3) Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

1) Defendant A and the Prosecutor

With respect to the punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant A (three years of imprisonment), the defendant A asserts that it is too unreasonable because the defendant A is too uncomfortable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2) Defendant B

The court below asserts that the punishment sentenced to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime in the original judgment, and one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second-B crime in the decision of the court below) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Prosecutor's assertion on Defendant C and determination on the ancillary charges added at the trial

1) Progress of litigation

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor takes the charge of the acquisition of the previous stolen property as the primary charge, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts charged for the acquisition of the stolen property through occupational negligence as the preliminary prosecutor's office, and the subject of the trial was added by this court's permission. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal as to the existing facts charged is to be judged as to the facts charged that the previous prosecutor's office changed to the primary charge.

2) Summary of the facts charged

A) Summary of the primary facts charged

Defendant C, while working on the white steel from June 2010 to October 201 of the same year, was in violation of his duty and caused damage equivalent to KRW 100 million to KRW 100 million. Defendant C, for the purpose of paying the amount of damages, received steel materials from Defendant A for the purpose of collecting the amount of damages.

Accordingly, Defendant C shall:

A. On August 10, 201, Defendant A received and acquired the amount equivalent to KRW 21,046,120 with knowledge of the fact that the steel plate was purchased in the name of U.S. Steel within the white steel around August 10, 201, at the time of the steel plate that Defendant A purchased in the name of the

B. On August 19, 201, the H beamline: (a) purchased in the name of the Defendant A in the U.S. Steel on or around August 19, 201; (b) acquired it with knowledge of the fact that the H beamline was an stolen element, and acquired it;

C. On September 8, 201, around 201, Defendant A received KRW 14,926,460 with knowledge of the fact that the steel plate purchased under the name of the Defendant A in the name of the U.S. Steel. was stolen.

Accordingly, Defendant C acquired stolens worth KRW 47,225,640 in total on three occasions as above.

B) Summary of the conjunctive charge

Defendant C worked in the white steel operated by the Defendant from June 2010 to December 10 of the same year, and supplied steel products to normal customers using false orders and tax invoices to supply steel products to other companies, such as the company operating the company in question, and supplied them to small-scale scrap metal companies that could not engage in transactions with the company in question, as if they were supplied with steel products to normal customers, Defendant C was employed by the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge

Defendant C was aware of the fact that he supplied steel products at normal prices from the steel manufacturers, such as swelry and tax invoices, and thereby inflicted damage on the said swelry and other companies, and it was difficult for Defendant A to prepare steel products at the individual license of the above swelry and swelry steel products. The unit price of the swelry and swelry beam purchased from A is not the amount supplied by the supplier of the steel products such as swelry, but the amount supplied by the company such as swelry from the above swelry, etc., so it is difficult for Defendant A to confirm that the swelry and swelry beam products were supplied to other companies, such as swelry and swelry products, and that A would not supply the swelry products at normal prices, such as swelry and swelry products. Thus, Defendant A would not supply the swelry products at the price of the swelry products.

Nevertheless, Defendant C:

A. On August 10, 201, Defendant A supplied steel plates in order to compensate for damages to the White Steel by neglecting the above duty of care and neglecting the determination of the stolen goods, and neglecting the tax invoice, Defendant A supplied steel plates to compensate for damages to the White Steel, Defendant A purchased steel products with the approval of F, the representative director of the relevant steel company, using a false order of supply to the White Steel Co., Ltd., a customer, with the approval of F, the purchase price of the steel market equivalent to KRW 21,046,120, and acquired the stolen goods, using a false order of supply to the White Steel Co., Ltd.

B. On August 19, 201, Defendant A supplied steel plates to compensate for damages to the White Steel by neglecting the above duty of care and neglecting the determination of the stolen goods, and neglecting the tax invoice, Defendant A supplied the steel plates to compensate for damages to the White Steel. However, Defendant A, using a false order of supply in normal supply for the development of the White Steel which is a customer, obtained the approval of F, the representative director of the Dried Steel, and acquired stolen goods by taking 11,253,060 won at the market price of the steel plates purchased from the Dried Steel, the buyer, with the approval of F, the representative director of the Dried Steel.

C. On September 8, 201, around 201, Defendant A neglected to perform the above duty of care and neglected to make a judgment on the stolen goods, and failed to receive a tax invoice, supplied the iron plate to compensate for damages to the White Steel, but Defendant A acquired the stolen goods by taking advantage of a false order form with the approval of F, the representative director of the U.S. Steel, who was a customer, using a false order form, which was supplied normally to the White Steel, with the purchase price equivalent to KRW 14,926,460.

As a result, Defendant C acquired stolens equivalent to KRW 47,225,640 in total on three occasions by occupational negligence as above.

3) The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The stolen shall be an object obtained through a criminal act, which is a property crime. The iron plates, etc. of the U.S. Steel, which were stored in the U.S. Steel, are not itself obtained due to the act of breach of trust or the act of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2119, Nov. 8, 1983). Even if the physical nature of the steel plates, etc., that Defendant C received from Defendant A is recognized, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the F’s statement at the lower court court court, investigation agency, Defendant A’s statement at an investigative agency, etc., cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the fact that Defendant C knew of the fact that the steel plates, etc. were used as a stolen material from the steel, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, this part of the facts charged is acquitted.

4) The judgment of this Court

A) Whether the goods have been stolen or not

A public prosecutor brought a public prosecution against Defendant C’s acquisition of the steel board owned by the victim’s subordinate steel due to Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust constitutes a crime of stolen property acquisition. However, the stolen property refers to a stolen property obtained by a criminal act, which is a property crime, and must be an object acquired through a crime of acquisition, such as theft, robbery, shooting, public conflict, embezzlement, etc., and the steel board supplied by Defendant A to Defendant C for a criminal act of occupational breach of trust is not an object obtained by the criminal act of Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust, nor an object obtained by the criminal act of breach of trust. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a stolen property.

Furthermore, fraud is established when a crime is established by deceiving a third party, leaving property in mistake, inducing a dispositive act, thereby inducing a disposal act, and thereby inducing a dispositive act, fraud is established when a company or an employee of a corporation obtains property or property benefits by deceiving the company or corporation and inducing a dispositive act. However, if a third party obtains such property or property benefits, fraud is established under Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act. However, as such, it is difficult to view that Defendant A, the head of the business in charge of the victim’s U-Ste Steel, purchased the metal in the name of the third party, as if he sells it to a normal trading place, and then deceiving the third party to acquire the metal in accordance with the delivery order of the victim’s U-Ste Steel, and then it constitutes fraud under Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act. However, even if the above steel sales, etc. constitute a crime of fraud under Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act, it is difficult to view that Defendant C acquired the goods as a result of the crime of fraud under Article 347(2).

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, as long as the iron plates acquired by Defendant C are not recognized as stolen property, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no proof of a crime is just, and further, it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty on the crime of acquiring goods through occupational negligence, which is a preliminary charge, without considering whether Defendant C was negligent in the course of performing his duties, and the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A, B, and prosecutor’s Defendant A

1) Defendant A and the Prosecutor

Defendant A’s overall criminal acts and reflects mistake, Defendant A’s agreement with the victim’s subordinate steel, Defendant A’s supply of iron plates to B that operated a small-scale scrap metal company for business performance, but failed to obtain approval normally, thereby resulting in each criminal act of this case, and Defendant A’s acquisition of personal benefits or payment is deemed to have been paid.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed by Defendant A in violation of his duties or by disposing of iron plates released by the way of deceiving the victims to a third party while serving as the chief of the business, thereby incurring damages equivalent to KRW 390 million in total to the victim's white steel, and the total amount of KRW 900 million in the victim's white steel. In light of the frequency of the crime, the crime is not less easily established, in light of the frequency of the crime, circumstances of the crime, degree of damage, etc., Defendant A agreed with the victim's white steel in the court below, and agreed with the victim's white steel in the court below, but most of the damages were not actually recovered. However, Defendant A had been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to occupational breach of trust in 206, and Defendant A had been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to occupational breach of trust in 206, and other various sentencing conditions such as Defendant A's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc. are considered appropriate and unfair or unreasonable.

Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing against the defendant A and the prosecutor above is without merit.

2) Defendant B

A) As to No. 1 of the judgment

Defendant B is both the time of crimes and the mistake is against the defendant B, and this case has to be considered in relation to the relationship between the crime of fraud established by the judgment and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the equality with the case should be considered at the same time.

However, Defendant B’s participation in the crime of fraud and occupational transfer of Defendant A’s work in the victim’s white steel and suffered a total of KRW 390 million from the victim’s white steel. In light of the frequency of the crime, the circumstances leading up to the crime, the degree of damage, etc., Defendant B’s establishment of a collateral security right of KRW 520 million in the victim’s white steel. However, the total damage cannot be deemed to have been recovered in light of the transaction price as of July 11, 2012 and the amount of the claim secured by the senior mortgage, etc. The lower court appears to have determined a punishment in consideration of such favorable circumstances. The lower court thereafter did not change the Defendant’s age, character and nature, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, etc., and the lower court’s sentencing conditions after the crime of this case are inappropriate and unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

B) As to Article 2-2(b) of the Judgment

Defendant B’s participation in the crime of occupational breach of trust by Defendant A, who had been employed in the victim U-S Steel, suffered a total of KRW 320 million from the victim U-S Steel. In light of the frequency of the crime, circumstances leading up to the crime, degree of damage, etc., Defendant B’s liability is not less than that of the crime. Defendant B committed occupational breach of trust against the victim U-S Steel without being aware of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, repeated crime due to fraud, and the suspended execution period. Defendant B did not take special measures to wear back the victim’s U-S Steel until the trial. In light of the following, Defendant B’s strict punishment is inevitable.

However, in light of the following facts: Defendant B’s total time of committing the crime and reflects mistake; if the sentence becomes final and conclusive, the previous suspension of execution should be invalidated and suspended until the sentence of one year and six months; Defendant B’s trial on violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is pending in the Ulsan District Court; Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of committing the crime; and other various sentencing conditions such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance after committing the crime; it is recognized that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B’s assertion is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant A and C, the appeal against the defendant A and the appeal against the defendant B against the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below are without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (in relation to the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant C, since the exceptional facts charged added in the trial constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the judgment of the court below which declared not guilty of the primary facts is maintained as it is, it shall not be judged not guilty separately from the order

On the other hand, since the appeal by Defendant B against the crime No. 2-B of the judgment of the court below is well-grounded as seen earlier, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the crime No. 2-B of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is

[Judgment 2-B of the Defendant]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence of the defendant B, which is recognized by this court, is the same as that of the judgment below, and therefore, it is applied as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356, 355(2) and (1), and 30 of the Criminal Code (the occupation of occupational breach of trust, inclusive: Provided, That this shall not apply

The proviso of Article 33 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply to a senior person on the ground that he/she has no status as a business manager.

section 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Mack Tae

has already been fixed