beta
Text
1. Of the judgment below, the part on the second crime of Defendant A as stated in the judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A is the judgment of the court below.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s decision is as follows: (a) a fine of KRW 3 million has been imposed on the crimes No. 1 in the judgment below; (b) a fine of KRW 6 months has been imposed on the crimes No. 2 in the judgment below; and (c) a fine of KRW 5 million has been imposed on Defendant B, respectively; and (d) the Defendant A asserts that the punishment by the court below on the crimes No. 2 in the judgment below is too unreasonable; and (e) the prosecutor asserts that the sentence against the
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. We examine the criminal defendant A and the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing against the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal against the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below.
The crime of embezzlement of this case is that Defendant A transferred 40 game equipment equivalent to KRW 100 million, a public property of the victim L, to another person as a security for his/her own loan obligation, and not only the nature of the crime but also the crime of embezzlement of this case during the period of repeated crime, and the victim wanting punishment against Defendant A, etc. is disadvantageous to Defendant A.
However, Defendant A recognized the crime of embezzlement of this case and reflects the depth thereof, and the actual amount of damage of the victim caused by the crime of embezzlement is limited to the amount equivalent to KRW 2.5 million, the victim's share of 40 out of the 40 game machine, which is the victim's share. However, the damage is not realized. The damage is not realized. The amount of damage is 2.3 million won, which is close to the actual amount of damage of the victim by the transferor after the crime of embezzlement of this case, was repaid by the Defendant, and the remainder of the payment was provided as security.
In light of the fact that the defendant revoked a fraud complaint against the game machine, the security for the transfer of the game machine appears to be de facto released, and the actual game machine is currently managed by the defendant, and the defendant expresses his intention to return ten game machine at any time according to the victim's will.