(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.03.17 2016노23 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.03.17 2016노23

업무상횡령등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Determination of the crime of this case is that the amount of embezzlement of the crime of this case is KRW 74 million and the amount of fraud is not much damaged by the victims, and that the alteration and alteration of the official document constitutes a crime that infringes on the public trust of the official document and on the public trust of the official document and on the State’s functions, and thus, the Defendant’s responsibility is disadvantageous.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake in depth and reflects the Defendant’s mistake; (b) there was no criminal record of the same kind and no record of punishment until now; (c) the victims and victims do not want to punish the Defendant; and (d) the victims do not want to punish the Defendant; and (b) taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The compensation order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings as to the part of the compensation order is a system in which the amount of damage is specified for direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act of the defendant, and only when the scope of compensation liability of the defendant is evident, the compensation order is given to the defendant to seek convenient and prompt recovery of damage suffered by the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1765, Nov. 12, 1985). First, as to the part of the application for compensation order due to embezzlement, the victim of embezzlement and the victim of embezzlement are corporation D, even if the applicant is the internal director who is the representative of the company, the applicant for compensation cannot be deemed a victim who can file an application for compensation.

B. According to the records, the applicant is the defendant with respect to the part of the application for compensation order due to fraud.

참조판례

-대법원 1985. 11. 12. 선고 85도1765 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노1582

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.25 2020노549

-대전지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노2035

-대전지방법원 2018.04.04 2017노4061

-광주지방법원 2017.02.08 2016노4302