beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant embezzled 4,640,000 won in total over 158 times as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below. However, the defendant's actual participation is merely an embezzlement of about 40 times of a total of KRW 1,00,000. The court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts constituting the crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged that the Defendant conspired with A to embezzlement of KRW 4,640,000 in total over 158 times, such as the first one of the crime sight table 1, there was a record of departure from the port even though the victim’s vessel management system revoked entry into the port and was refunded the fare, and did not enter the port thereafter.
At the same time, it was organized on the basis of the list of exchange transactions compiled by the victim, the list of details, the book of root, the details of the payment of vehicle repair expenses, etc.
The court below, along with the above evidence, held that in order to raise the repair cost when vehicles are damaged at the time of loading, the court below collected money separately by arbitrarily refunding the list of passengers on board with Gap's instructions to the defendant and C.
Based on the statements in the investigation agency of the defendant, A, etc. and in the court below, the statements in Q Q investigation agency of the employee Q Q that the defendant did not give such instructions, and the statements in the investigation agency of the employee N,O, P, Q, etc. that the defendant did not receive the above instructions, and that he did not receive the above instructions, and that he did not receive the above instructions, he recognized that all of them were embezzled by delivering the money in return for the check to A upon receipt of the instructions of the defendant.
(b).