logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.13 2015노1081
업무상횡령등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed in light of the following: (a) arbitrarily consumed and embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 200 million of the victim limited liability company D Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd., which the defendant operated; (b) using the victim limited liability company D Co., Ltd. D Co., Ltd.’s corporate card to purchase personal goods; and (c) using the victim limited liability company D Co., Ltd.’s personal goods for causing damages equivalent to KRW 11 million to the above victim company; (d) by forging the car lease agreement in the name of E Co., Ltd., which is the representative director of limited liability company D Co., Ltd.; (b) the victim company complained of damages caused by the crime of this case; and (c)

On the other hand, however, it is recognized that the defendant made confession of all of the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake, and that the defendant deposited KRW 26 million for the victim D Co., Ltd. in favor of the defendant. Considering all of the above circumstances and all other sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, the court below's punishment is not deemed too weak or unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor and the defendant's assertion are rejected.

3. If so, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(2) Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is clear that “1,343,894 won” in Section 17 of the original judgment is a clerical error of “1,343,894 won,” and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

arrow