beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B 1) Since the suspicion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is related to the duties of the victim, the act of paying attorney's expenses to the victim's funds is not an occupational embezzlement crime. However, since the lower court recognized it as an occupational embezzlement crime, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles, even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is established, considering the fact that Defendant B fully repaid the amount of damage to the victim, the lower court's punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of social service) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the misconception of facts (not guilty part) L, I’s statement, L’s pocket book contents, and all other circumstances, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the charges of bribery of this case on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The court below acquitted the Defendants of the charges of bribery of this case, on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge it. 2) The court below acquitted the Defendants of the charges of bribery of this case. As a result of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the charges of bribery of this case, the entire sentencing of the court below (a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant B: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of social service).
2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion
A. Since a member of a juristic person, by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, conducts business for the juristic person by lawful means, if a member of the juristic person has been investigated or accused in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the course of performing his/her duties, it constitutes occupational embezzlement to pay his/her personal
(Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1419 Decided June 2, 2006). In addition, it can be used as an organization’s expense in principle.