(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.1.21. 선고 2018고합945 판결

The Defendant is a person who served as the C Team Vice-President in the Seoul Office from October 201 to January 17, 2018 and has been engaged in preparation for holding the board of directors.

1. Events, such as writing, electronic records, etc.;

On June 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) accessed the Defendant’s computer installed in B’s Seoul Office Section Team office located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D Building E, to the Defendant’s computer in the 11th floor; (b) drafted a “written application for the maximum amount of a corporate card card increase from KRW 30 million to KRW 50 million; and (c) requested H to obtain approval from the head of the team; and (d) sent the said written application to the employee in charge of the Fund Team that did not know that the Defendant approved the H’s name at the same time, and sent it to the employee in charge of the Fund Team that did not know that the Defendant obtained approval of the H’s name.

As a result, the Defendant forged and exercised the “written application for the extension of the limit of the corporation card in the H’s name, a prior recording of rights and obligations, for the purpose of interfering with B’s affairs without legitimate authority, from November 22, 2017, the part of the “written application for the extension of the limit of the corporation card” in the “written application for the extension of the limit of the H’s card” in the “written application for the extension of the limit of the rights and obligations,” as shown in the attached list of crimes (1) up to six times.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

The Defendant purchased the above corporate card with the above corporate card issued by the victim B and used it for personal purposes, such as investment in stocks, etc., and purchased the above corporate card only for the victim’s personal purposes, and used it for the personal purpose, and used it for the personal purpose and consumed it for the personal purpose by purchasing the above corporate card for KRW 30 million at the Jnam Branch Co., Ltd. located in Seocho-gu Seoul, in violation of its occupational duty. On January 1, 2017, the Defendant purchased KRW 30 million with the above corporate card at the Jnam Branch Co., Ltd. in Seocho-gu, Seoul, using the above corporate card, sold and commercialized it at a nearby merchandise coupon trading business, and consumed it for the personal purpose, from that time to January 7, 2018, by using the above corporate card until January 7, 2018 (2).

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 817 million and suffered property damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of K;

1. Each statement of H, L and K;

1. Investigation report (to hear the statement at H call of the head of the C team team);

1. An application for the maximum amount of a corporation card;

1. The approval details of each credit card, a detailed statement of credit card bills used, a detailed statement of transactions by account, and a statement of liquidity transactions;

1. Payment management regulations, e-mail details, form of a corporate card management angle, application form for the F card companies members, F enterprise card application information, notification on the abolition of joint and several sureties, request for cooperation related to the abolition of joint and several sureties financial rights, guidance on the execution of individual corporate cards, management books, and advice on the transmission of performance records of individual corporate cards;

Application of Statutes

1. Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234 and 232-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 3 (1) 2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 15256, Dec. 19, 2017; Act No. 15256, Mar. 20, 2018); Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment provided for in the crime of fraud, electronic records, etc., with any heavier crime, and between the crimes of fraud, electronic records, etc., and any heavier crime)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each imprisonment with prison labor for any crime of fraud, electronic records, etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty, shall be the penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Punishment,

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime (first crime): Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won) for Embezzlement/Misappropriation

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Where the method of punishment is extremely poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, Three to Six years of imprisonment

(b) Crimes falling under subparagraphs 2 and 3: Each crimes of fraud, electronic records, etc. 1);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 6 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(c) Final recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Three to seven years of imprisonment (in accordance with the standards for handling at least three multiple crimes, 1/2 (1 year) and 1/3 (8 months) of the upper limit of the scope of sentence for Class 2 crimes and the upper limit of the scope of sentence for Class 3 crimes shall be added to the upper limit of the range of sentence for Class 1 (6 years) according to the standards for processing at least

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and various sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

0. Unfavorable circumstances: the Defendant used the corporate card received from the victimized Company for business purposes for personal purposes, thereby causing property damage exceeding KRW 800 million to the victimized Company; and in the process, the Defendant committed the crimes under private electronic records, etc., and also committed the crimes under private electronic records, etc., and in view of the fact that the crime was committed in a planned and repeated manner, and that the amount of damage was considerably significant, the nature of the crime is not good. In addition, the damage of the victimized Company was not recovered.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The Defendant recognizes and reflects all of the crimes of this case, and repaid KRW 177,251,614 out of the amount of damage suffered by the victimized Company. In addition, the Defendant has dependents who are not healthy, and the Defendant has no record of being subject to criminal punishment prior to the instant case.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

○ guilty: Seven jurors

○ Not guilty: Ten jurors.

2. Opinions on sentencing

○ 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor: Three jurors

○ Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months: Two jurors;

○ Three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended execution: Two jurors;

For the above reasons, this case is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

Judges

The presiding judge, judges and assistant judges

Judges Park Jong-ro

Judges Park Jae-gu

Note tin

1) In the event that a person who has conducted the forgery, alteration, or preparation, etc. of a false diagnosis of a private document uses the document, etc. in question, it shall not be treated as a majority crime, but shall be treated as a sentencing factor only.