beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B, C, and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B and C1) The lower court found the Defendants guilty of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to occupational breach of trust against the said Defendants, but ① Defendant A, an incorporated association, (hereinafter “N”).
(AC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) which is a subsidiary company according to a management judgment that considers the outstanding ability as a technician although it was revealed that the costs of the research services were occupationally embezzled.
(2) AC has continued to have retired from employment, and (2) most of the AC employees, who have retired from N, caused fears due to a debrison in the future, and Defendant B, the representative director, for the purpose of boosting the morale of employees; and (3) Defendant A was the core staff of AC; and (4) Defendant A was the result of the AC’s performance due to the research service task performed by A; and (3) Defendant A was the core staff of AC; and the result of the AC’s performance due to the research service task performed by A, the amount of KRW 65,74,140 (the amount prior to the deduction of the tax amount; hereinafter the same shall apply) according to the incentive payment plan for those persons
In light of the fact that payment was made, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had the intention of occupational breach of trust. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Unless it is an unreasonable sentencing decision.
Even if the court below's sentence (Defendant B: 2 years of suspended sentence in August, and Defendant C: fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of the charge of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case. However, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A and B had a close relationship with the former, such as having worked together with N and AC as a subordinate relationship; (b) Defendant A referred to the amount of attorney’s fees and deposit money for occupational embezzlement cases to Defendant B; and (c) Defendant A had an incentive paid by AC.