특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Act on Special Cases concerning misunderstanding of misunderstanding of Facts and Forfeiture and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”)
() Article 6(1) of the Act provides that a crime victim may collect confiscation of a crime victim's property in cases where it is deemed that it is extremely difficult for him/her to recover damage because he/she cannot exercise his/her right to claim a return of property or claim a compensation for damage against a criminal with respect to such property. In this case, the indictment of the victim E-Gun and the criminal facts column of the judgment below are stated as the "victim E-Gun Office," but the owner and truster of the subsidy for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of this case appears as E-Gun, and it is reasonable to view the victim of
In light of the fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damage and a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendant’s husband, and takes active measures to recover damage, such as taking a provisional disposition against the Defendant’s husband’s real property, etc., the requirements for additional collection under the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property are not satisfied. Even if additional collection is possible under the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property, the actual amount of damage is not less than KRW 817,630,000 as the Defendant’s additional deposit amount and credit card payment amount are not deducted from the amount of damage. Nevertheless, the lower court imposed additional collection of KRW 817,630,000 on the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the above facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s judgment that sentenced the Defendant to an unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 817,630,00,000, too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. First of all, we examine the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.
A. The relevant legal doctrine and the Corruption Property Confiscation Act are the same.