업무상횡령등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is against the Defendant’s wrong determination, the actual amount of damage by the victim M and G is less than 38 million won, and the actual amount of damage by the victim M and G is less than 22 million won, and the Defendant does not have any criminal records exceeding the fine. Although it is acknowledged that there is no criminal records, the Defendant is not guilty, the total amount of damage by the instant case is significant, the victim D operating E is the Defendant’s employer, once the victim D pays part of the damage to the rest of the victims of the fraud, the actual damage is only changed, and there is no change in the actual damage amount, and the Defendant has made no effort to recover the damage, and taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, health, home environment, how the crime was committed, how the crime was committed, how the crime was committed, and how the crime was committed before and after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the Defendant’
2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, the term "criminal facts" in the judgment of the court below is clear that "from January 25, 2011," in the last sentence "from January 2011 to January 11, 201," and "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the front of the "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the "Application of the Act" is omitted, and it is apparent that "each Criminal Act" should be added in the front of "Article 356". Thus, each of the above parts shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.
.