logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.22 2020노2446
업무상횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is able to repent his mistake in depth by recognizing the instant crime.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment, except for punishment of a fine twice due to gambling, etc.

However, the instant crime committed by the Defendant while working for the victim company, and embezzled KRW 242,830,795 in total on 307 occasions from May 12, 2009 to December 12, 2018 by consuming the money of the victim company to his/her or his/her account in the name of his/her own or his/her partner for the following personal purposes. As such, the period of the instant crime is long and the amount of damage is high.

The Defendant alleged that the Defendant repaid the victim KRW 149,518,791, which is a part of the amount of damage. Even if having accepted such claim, it is a considerable amount exceeding KRW 93 million that has not been recovered until now.

In addition to these circumstances, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstance, motive, means, and consequence of the Defendant committed the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, career, environment, personality, conduct, and family relationship.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. An order for compensation pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Application for Compensation Orders is a system that intends to promote the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply and promptly by ordering compensation to the accused only when the amount of damage is specified for direct property damage suffered by a victim of a criminal act of the accused and the scope of the defendant's liability is clear. In accordance with Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings, whether or not

arrow