logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.17 2019노5071
업무상횡령등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In a case where the scope of the judgment of this court is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and falls under Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act, one punishment should be imposed. However, the above provision is a provision concerning the concurrent crimes, and where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction, partial acquittal, or imprisonment with prison labor for a part of the case prosecuted at the same time, or sentence of a fine for other crimes, etc., the part included in the one order may be separately appealed from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties may be separately appealed. In a case where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the appellate court which acquitted or acquitted the part of the conviction, which was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor, the part which was not appealed by the court of final appeal shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive after the period of appeal elapses, and in a case that was pending in the court of final appeal.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992). According to the above legal principle, the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of conviction among the judgment below. Since only the prosecutor appealeds on the part of innocence among the judgment below, the petition of appeal submitted by the prosecutor included the scope of appeal in the “total” but the entire part of the judgment of innocence is determined.

The guilty part was separated and finalized as it is, and the object of this court's judgment is limited to the acquittal part among the judgment below.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As to the [Attachment 1] No. 1 of the Crimes List as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, the Defendant spent KRW 50 million as the price for the construction of multi-household house B in Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

arrow