횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the extent that the punishment (6 million won in penalty) imposed by the court below is too unfased.
2. Before determining the reasons for ex officio appeal, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution on October 19, 2016 by the Daegu District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Daegu District Court on October 19, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 2016. As above, the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc. of which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of violation of the judgment of the lower court, etc. of the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act and the crime of violation of the judgment of the lower court are determined by considering equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus,
3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.
【Inasmuch as a new judgment was rendered, the facts constituting a crime and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court below and the summary of the evidence are as follows: “The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Daegu District Court on October 19, 2016 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on October 27, 2016.”
In addition, “1. Before the judgment,” and the summary of the evidence added “1. Before the judgment: the Daegu District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Order 1499, Daegu District Court 2016No 960,” as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. The first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 37 (1);
1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act recognize and reflects the crimes.