beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement due to W’s payment of wages among the facts charged in the instant case.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational embezzlement.
2. The lower court, on the following grounds, reversed ex officio the portion of KRW 360,856,30, which the first instance court sentenced to the Defendant for the following reasons, and ordered the Defendant to collect KRW 492,731,80 from the Defendant.
In other words, KRW 131,875,50, which was paid by the Defendant and C, was paid from the Defendant to B upon the Defendant’s request, out of the amount of the amount of the water received due to the instant joint breach of trust by the Defendant and C. Thus, the said money paid to B constitutes the amount distributed to the Defendant.
Therefore, not only the above 360,856,30 won recognized by the first instance court, but also the above 131,875,500 won should be additionally collected from the Defendant pursuant to Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s conclusion that ordered the Defendant to additionally collect KRW 492,731,800 is justifiable.
The lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.