beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part of innocence as to occupational embezzlement against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A and C, respectively.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the public prosecutor is unreasonable in addition to misconception of facts as the grounds for appeal, but the court below acquitted all the facts charged of this case, and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing was accepted, and where the facts charged are judged guilty, proper sentencing corresponding to the nature and responsibility of the crime should be made. Thus, the prosecutor’s argument of unfair sentencing is not separately
The judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, among the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the Defendants, by deceiving M as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), had entered into a contract with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and employed as an executive officer of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) corresponding to G’s subsidiary, and received the benefits from G to F, and received the benefits from the operating cost of the business to be delivered to F, and received the benefits from G to receive the benefits.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants are sufficiently recognized as F’s officers, without obtaining permission from G, the parent company, and promoting the sewage treatment plant business in Vietnam and using the F’s funds kept in the course of business.
2. Determination:
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, judgment 1 on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is based on the summary of the facts charged, Defendant A, from July 20, 2007 to May 12, 2009, served as the Chairperson and Technical Manager of F and the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).
for the same period, the directors and the chief executive officers of the company have been employed.