logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.22 2014노2363
자격모용사문서작성등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty (three million won of a fine) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unfilled.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, and the trial at the trial, added the facts charged as part of the inclusive crime to the defendant as to the embezzlement of occupational duties charged as an inclusive crime, and applied for changes in the indictment by this court. Since the scope of the trial has changed by permitting this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by this Court as the criminal history of the crime are as stated in the original judgment, except for adding the following criminal facts to the criminal facts of the original judgment, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The defendant is a person who has been engaged in the duties, such as management fees, while working as the head of the management team of the Daejeon Seo-gu Dtel management office.

Around February 13, 2007, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 125,010 as management expenses from the occupant referred to in 1015, and embezzled it by arbitrarily using it without depositing it in the account of the management office, and then using it from April 8, 2008 to April 51, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence of the facts found by this court is "1. The police officer's interrogation protocol of the accused (one, two, three times)", and "1. R.

arrow