logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.19 2015노304
업무상횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant embezzled funds of the victim company over several times while in charge of the management of the funds of the victim company, and the amount of embezzlement up to about KRW 300 million, etc., the case is inappropriate in view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects his/her intent; (b) the Defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim during the trial; (c) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. An applicant for judgment on an application for a compensation order sought payment of KRW 233,350,962, which was not repaid out of the amount of damage incurred by the instant crime. However, according to the records, the applicant for compensation, following the agreement with the Defendant around June 16, 2015, renounced other claims than the conditions agreed upon by the Defendant, and thus, it is inappropriate to issue a compensation order because the existence or scope of liability for compensation is unclear, and thus, it is inappropriate to accept the application.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is again ruled after pleading as follows. The application for remedy order by the applicant for compensation is dismissed pursuant to Articles 25 (3) 3 and 32 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

arrow