업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. In the instant case, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on this part of the facts charged, as long as it found the Defendant guilty of the remaining facts charged in relation to the crime that is a single comprehensive crime with this part of the facts charged in the instant case, since the facts charged in the sequence 16 of the List of Crimes constitute a case without proof of criminal facts, and thus, the lower court did not sentence the Defendant not guilty on this part.
The prosecutor did not appeal against this, and only the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
Therefore, although the non-guilty part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below was transferred to the trial in accordance with the principle of appeal, it was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.
As such, (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991, etc.). As regards this part, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed (i.e., the part of the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the conclusion, shall not be judged again). Therefore, the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case, which the Defendant transferred from July 31, 2014 to 17:32, from around 16:29 to 17:32, to the account in the name of the victim company, the payment of each of the instant funds was made by the Defendant, the joint representative director of the victim company, and the J prior to the settlement of expenses incurred in performing the business affairs of the victim company, or was made by the Defendant and J (attached Table 1, 3 to 11), the payment of legitimate benefits to the Defendant and J (overtime 2, 12), the payment of the Defendant’s loans, or the payment of the Defendant’s loans to the attorney’s fees, etc. (overtime 14, 15) and thus, the Defendant transferred the company’s funds to the Defendant or a third party’s account.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, it is not possible.