beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the crime of 2012 Gohap475 in the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, was placed in another employee who delivered a part of the food cost of 360,500 won, which was collected and kept by the Defendant, and the money that he brought was merely KRW 200,000.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant embezzled all of 360,500 won, is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant had been in custody for the victim'sO and has consumed KRW 360,500,00, the sum of KRW 325,500, which the defendant had been in custody for the payment of food at the time, and KRW 35,50,000, which was in custody for the payment of the remaining money. There was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant, and thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted ( although the defendant asserted that he provided other employees engaged in the delivery service together with the above part of the said money, the defendant did not specify the specific amount and the recipient, and there was no other circumstance to support
The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized to commit the crime and divided, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the punishment twice, in the case of attempted robbery against the victim L and the crime of attempted robbery and intrusion on residence, and reported the fact to an investigation agency by himself/herself, and the defendant seems to have caused each of the crimes of this case while he/she had grow up in an poor environment and experienced economic difficulties, and the defendant's leakage or wanting the defendant's prior domicile are favorable to the defendant.