업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination is an unfavorable circumstance, such as that the amount embezzled by the Defendant for eight months exceeds KRW 30,000,000, and that the responsibility of the Defendant is not less than that of the Defendant, and that the Defendant appears to have committed an offense under the same water law even before the instant case, and that the Defendant, during the trial of the first instance, requested the continuation of the date for agreement with the victim and did not attend the trial on several occasions, etc.
However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake against himself/herself; (b) there was no record of criminal punishment other than twice a fine; (c) the Defendant did not wish to punish the Defendant; (d) the Defendant did not wish to support his/her wife and children; (e) the Defendant’s parents want to be able to support his/her wife and children; and (e) other sentencing conditions such as Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence; and (e) circumstances after the instant crime; and (e) the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission for the instant crime, based on the following factors: (a) the scope of sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission for the instant crime is 10 months from the month of imprisonment; (b) embezzlement and breach of trust; (c) a person in special form of punishment; (d) the decision of the recommended area; (d) the scope of the recommended sentence (excluding mitigation of punishment in January through October); and (e) the scope of suspended execution.
3. The lower judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s appeal is based on its reasoning, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.
Criminal facts
The facts of the crime acknowledged by this court are as follows: No. 7, 13, 18, 33, 36, 47, 48, 54, and 80, the transaction partner I “AF” in attached Table 7, 13, 18, 33, 36, 47, 48, 54, and 80, the evidence of “AF” is as “AG”.