업무상횡령등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding the legal principles, the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily used the loans that are not extended to members, including victims E, F, and G, while carrying out their business, is recognized, but this is reasonable to be evaluated as one act under the social concept. As such, even if multiple embezzlements are established by each victim, each embezzlement is in a commercial competition relationship.
However, since the summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million against R among the above members became final and conclusive on December 11, 2014, the facts charged in this case in relation to the crime of the above summary order shall be acquitted.
(2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and ten months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too unhutiled and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the ordinary concurrence refers to the case where one act meets the requirements of several substantially under the social concept. According to the records, on December 11, 2012, the Defendant received 340,051,623 won, including loans for the victims’ relocation from a certified judicial scrivener to the union account, and withdrawn 88,000,000 won on the same day, and the Defendant’s withdrawal from the union account on December 14, 2012, on December 40, 2012, 40,000 won, and 40,000,000 won on December 21, 2012, and 71,000,000,000 won on December 28, 2012, under the premise that the Defendant’s voluntary withdrawal of loans held on behalf of the victims, the Defendant’s assertion in the summary order and the facts charged cannot be seen as one act under the social concept.
B. As to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the instant case embezzled the amount that the Defendant received from the members of the reconstruction association as the president of the reconstruction association.