The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant, even though the value-added tax was refunded to KRW 100 million, but it was concealed to the victims, who were the owner of the building, and subsequently consumed the refund money for personal purposes, and its nature is heavy in light of the method of the crime and the number of damages.

Until the trial, the Defendant did not agree with the victim.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, according to the agreement between the victims on December 2, 2013, there was a claim equivalent to KRW 50 million for the victims, and that the Defendant deposited approximately KRW 48 million for the victims at the trial except for KRW 50 million out of the total amount of damages in this case for the victims, and that the damage in this case was almost recovered.

However, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement on December 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement without notifying the victims of the fact that the value-added tax was refunded as above, and the set-off against the claim for tort is not allowed (see Article 496 of the Civil Act), and the damage in the instant case cannot be deemed to have been entirely recovered.

However, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the defendant deposited approximately KRW 48 million for victims in the trial, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine by the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (the scope of imprisonment between April and January 4) / [the scope of the recommended sentence] 1 basic area ( April-1 year and April 4), etc. (no special person) (the scope of the recommended sentence) / [the scope of April-100], the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is somewhat unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

The conclusion is.