beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendants received subsidies from the Defendants (in fact-findings, unreasonable sentencing) and used them while keeping them in custody without distinguishing them from the subsidies to the participants, the act of diversion of subsidies to the entire subsidies received in relation to the participants is recognized, and even if the unexecution money exists, the unexecution money should not be excluded in calculating the amount of embezzlement.
Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of embezzlements against the Defendants as the total amount of training expenses, meal expenses, grasium, food and transportation expenses, 861,00 won in case of Defendant A, 1,303,50 won in case of Defendant B, and 1,885,500 won in case of Defendant C.
In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too uneased and unfair.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant B (the factual error, the unreasonable sentencing decision) Defendant B’s defense counsel recognized both crimes as to the obstruction of business and claimed only the grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal.
Since then, through the written opinion dated April 16, 2019, which was after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the judgment below that found the defendant guilty of the obstruction of business even after examining it ex officio.
In relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement recognized by the court below, ① BX managed the expense, and Defendant B had no intention to commit the crime.
② On the contrary, Defendant B’s payment of the pre-paid training costs and meal service costs received with subsidies as the type of pre-training, and thus, cannot be deemed to have been executed for the intended purpose.
③ Otherwise, D.D.