beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 3,00,000 won, and Defendant D shall be punished by a fine of 5.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On the premise that Defendant A falls under “accounting personnel” as prescribed by the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc., the Prosecutor appealed from the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) against Defendant A among the charges in the instant case on the ground of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. However, as seen in the following paragraph (2), as long as the indictment was modified
1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of "business embezzlement using business promotion expenses to the defendants as the living expenses of the diplomatic mission") is that this part of the disbursement is made for the personal benefit of the defendant A or excessive beyond a reasonable scope even if it is related to his official duties, so the defendant may be found to have had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant did not have an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below against the defendant A of unfair sentencing (the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant did not have an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition
B. Defendant A1) In collusion with co-defendants for occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust, the Defendant purchased merchandise coupons using a corporate card to settle business promotion expenses for O’s market in collusion with co-defendants and created cash by selling them, or used them as golf expenses with the Defendant’s party membership fees or for golf expenses with the reporters.
Furthermore, there is no evidence about how much the fee rate of the merchandise coupon purchased with the corporate card (amount of damage in the case of occupational breach of trust) is.
The above golf costs have been disbursed not only for public relations for correction but also for expenses.