beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is unfair that the Defendant (a fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on February 22, 2012, the part of the lower judgment on February 4, 2012, indicated that “the charge of occupational embezzlement on September 14, 2012 among the facts charged in this case is not guilty.” However, since it is apparent that “the charge of occupational embezzlement on February 22, 2012 among the facts charged in this case is a clerical error,” it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, as seen thereafter. Although the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of occupational embezzlement, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant provided 14 million won out of the teachers’ retirement reserve, which was kept in the business on February 22, 2012, and embezzled it as a collateral, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unjust sentencing.2) As such, the lower court’s sentence is too unfair.
2. Determination
A. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged provides the Defendant with the security of KRW 14 million from the above deposit account while depositing KRW 21,855,792 into the Defendant’s name bank L deposit account at the time deposit account at the Gu-U.S. branch of the 89 U.S. Si/Gu-U.S.A. (hereinafter “instant security”) in the course of performing duties for the victim church (hereinafter “instant security”).
(2) The Defendant’s bank M account in the name of the Defendant was loaned KRW 14 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(2) Accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, i.e., the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the first instance court’s judgment and the first instance court’s judgment, i.e., ①., the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence.