beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a year of imprisonment for a defendant B, and for a defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-finding (limited to occupational embezzlement by the public invitation of the defendants) a clan is obliged to pay to L with consulting fees (hereinafter referred to as "agreement fees" or "amount in the name of consulting expenses" in this section) as stated in the consulting agreement and the report of accounts between a clan and L, and there is no doubt that the difference will be embezzled after the defendants entered less than the amount actually payable.
On the other hand, the judgment of conviction of the court below on this part of the facts charged is unreasonable for the following reasons.
1) The embezzlement of KRW 100,000,000, as indicated in the table of crime (1) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the sum of KRW 1,2,4,5, and KRW 6,000,00,000,000,000,000 in the table of crime (1) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is not money owned by the clan from L out of the consulting fees paid by the clan L on February 27, 2009. (2) The fact of embezzlement of KRW 5,00,000,000,000, as listed in the table of crime list (1) 3, 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which
3) The embezzlement of KRW 11 billion stated in the list of crimes (2) in the table of crime committed in the judgment below is a sum of KRW 1.1 billion stated in the table of crime committed in the attached Table (2) as shown in the judgment below, and a part of KRW 20 million that Defendant A withdrawn from his family account on April 20, 2009 and KRW 30 million withdrawn on April 23, 2009. The Defendants deposited KRW 105,345,00 among them into another family account under the name of tax and public charges, and paid all the remainder as consulting fees to L, and there is no other embezzlement. (2) The sentence of the court below against the Defendants on unfair sentencing (2) year of suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for 1 year and 6 years, 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for Defendant B and 2 years of suspended sentence of 30 million, and Defendant C’s suspended sentence of execution for 2 years in August is too unfair.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment, and at the trial of the prosecutor.