beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to raise funds to be used by the president of HH in accordance with X’s instructions (order). However, even though the principal offender of the instant occupational embezzlement is the president and X, and the Defendant was merely a paper offender, or the Defendant committed the instant crime as a co-principal with X, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
(2) On July 1, 2009, when six months have passed since the Defendant was appointed to the HH, the Defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime in accordance with the direction of X, a direct superior officer, and thus, the Defendant is dismissed from liability on the grounds that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.
B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the argument that the crime constitutes an accessory crime first falls under the category of a principal offender, and the principal offender refers to aiding and abetting the principal offender before or during the principal offender’s practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8050, Nov. 29, 2007). Thus, in this case, in order to make money to be used by the president of the Corporation for the purpose of raising money from the president of the Corporation, the principal offender’s purchase of heating oil from theO operating the Nriririririririririri station and the payment of oil for this purpose, as if the Defendant made a false draft document and paid money to theO of the victim, and then embezzled money from the Corporation after returning 21.5 million won as cash and the principal product right to the victim, and there is no other person other than the Defendant that the victim embezzled money from the Corporation.