업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the branch court of the Busan District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 13, 2016. The criminal facts of the final judgment and the facts charged in the instant case committed prior to the pronouncement of the said judgment are related to a single comprehensive crime. Therefore, the effect of the final judgment is limited to the above facts charged, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant even though it should be sentenced to acquittal. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (exemption from punishment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. In a case where multiple acts falling under the same name of the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles continue to be committed for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal defendant and the benefit and protection of the law is identical, each act should be punished by a single comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6620, Jan. 11, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do595, Mar. 29, 2007, etc.). According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Busan District Court's Dong branch branch for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the above judgment finalized, the defendant's crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) was committed in the name of the victim D representative director corporation (hereinafter "D's rent") to 208.