전자금융거래법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
The progress of the instant case and the scope of the court’s trial on the instant facts charged, the lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 5 million to the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and acquitted the embezzlement.
The judgment below
The defendant and prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of misapprehension of the legal principles, but the judgment prior to the remanding of the case was sentenced to a dismissal of all appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor.
The prosecutor appealed on the whole judgment of the court prior to remand on the ground of misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Supreme Court held that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment prior to remanding the above acquittal portion, and on the ground that the aforementioned acquittal portion and the aforementioned conviction portion are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence for all of them, the entire judgment prior to remand
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is the conviction part and the acquittal part in accordance with the purport of the above judgment of remand.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The criminal defendant (e.g., a fine of 5 million won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part) is difficult to view the Defendant’s embezzlement crime as being absorbed into a telecommunications-based financial fraud crime, because the Defendant simply committed a telecommunications-based financial fraud crime without relation to the telecommunications-based financial fraud, and thus, the Defendant is in the position of custodian under the good faith
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the embezzlement. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
On December 1, 2016, the Defendant’s embezzlement among the facts charged in this case’s judgment as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles.