특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment below
Among them, the part of conviction against Defendant A (including the part of innocence) and the part against Defendant B.
1. According to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Trial Scope of this Court, where an appeal against a conviction is filed, an order for compensation shall be transferred to the appellate court together with the case of the defendant, but pursuant to Article 32(4) of the same Act, an applicant may not appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation.
Therefore, as long as the court of original judgment rejected an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, the case of application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court because it is not in the first instance.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendants A (A) and (a) of the lower judgment’s conviction against Defendant 1, which erred by misapprehending the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the remaining parts of the conviction against Defendant A (excluding the violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, and by violating the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (information and communications network infringement) (b). The lower court’s punishment (four years of imprisonment with prison labor) against Defendant 2 was too unreasonable.
2) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the lower judgment of the lower court, which did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant (specific mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine). B) The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the illegal Defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) Violation of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the acquittal part of the lower judgment’s judgment (specific misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are examined following the facts charged). 2) The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and the facts charged by violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) in 2015 high-class 112 against the Defendants.