beta
Text
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and nine months, Defendant B, and D, respectively, in April of each credit cooperative, and Defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of facts. (1) although Defendant A sold the piping materials listed in the facts of the crime of this case (hereinafter “instant piping materials”) owned by Defendant B, C, and D (hereinafter “victim”) to many customers, including Defendant B, C, and D, and embezzled the piping materials of this case by receiving a total of KRW 398,621,980 from the sales proceeds, it is true that Defendant A embezzled the material of this case. However, the amount of damages incurred by the Victim A, namely, the cost of purchase of the piping materials of this case (58,870,760 won ±1.2) was merely 465,725,63 won (=58,760 won) and the cost of purchase of the piping materials of this case (hereinafter “the cost of purchase”) was 58,578,786,787,7885 and 7088 of the judgment below.
B recognized the victim company as the amount of damages. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Although Defendants B, C, D, C, and D did not know that the instant piping material was stolen, and there was no negligence as to the failure of such knowledge, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged against the said Defendants by taking each of the statements at the investigation agency and the lower court’s trial by the representative director of the Defendant A and the victim company at the investigation agency and the lower court. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of imprisonment: Defendant A; Defendant B; Defendant C; Defendant C: 2 years of suspended sentence in May of each imprisonment without prison labor; and Defendant C: 2 years of suspended sentence in April of the imprisonment without prison labor) are too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. An ex officio decision 1) Amendments to Bill of Indictment.