업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
(2) The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the date of the first instance trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts among the grounds for appeal. The Defendant obtained 330 million won through several times while managing the property of the victim reconstruction association, and it is also highly high and poor to commit the crime.
However, in light of the following factors: (a) the defendant's agreement with the victim reconstruction association (not the actual recovery of damage) is not subject to punishment; (b) the defendant reflects his fault; and (c) there are no other criminal records, including the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine before ten (10) years ago; and (d) the defendant did not have any other criminal records; and (b) the defendant's age-oriented environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is somewhat unreasonable.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is well-grounded.
Criminal facts
The summary of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendant recognized by the court is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of embezzlement), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;