업무상횡령등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for eight months, respectively.
Defendant
C. D.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The Defendant’s receipt of special bonuses by mistake of fact and misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the convictions in the judgment of the court below) is based on the employees’ remuneration and disaster compensation rules to which the K Union (hereinafter “K Union”)’s bylaws for compensation for actual expenses apply mutatis mutandis, and thus, Defendant breached his duties.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, in light of the overall circumstances of the payment of special bonus as above, the defendant did not have the intention to obtain the intention of occupational breach of trust or illegal act.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 12 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s punishment (limited to KRW 8 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
(c)
It is clear that the crime of embezzlement is established in light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ act in violation of the statutes or the social rules and the purpose thereof is illegal and committed against the intent of the Defendants’ act in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes, and the fiduciary relationship with the K union, thereby creating cash funds by appropriating the transaction price in excess of the ordinary budget of the K union in order to create a dynamic cash that cannot be compiled with the regular budget of the K union as stated in this part of the facts charged; and (b) the Defendants’ act in violation of the statutes and the
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant acquired property benefits by receiving special bonuses in violation of his/her duties, and inflicted property damage equivalent to the same amount on the Victim K association, and the Defendant was a private road with intent to commit occupational breach of trust and to obtain water law.
Recognized.
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.