beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendants partly revised criminal facts to the extent that it does not impede the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense.
[criminal record] On February 6, 2015, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul High Court on February 6, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015.
Defendant
B On February 6, 2015, the Seoul High Court was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the said judgment was finalized on February 14, 2015.
[1] On January 1, 2014, 416: Defendant A prosecutor filed a public prosecution for this part of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by applying a rate to one of the crimes, including both the portion of false salary to J and K, the portion of false salary to L, the portion of corporate driving funds in 2008, and the portion of corporate driving funds in 2010.
Several acts falling under the name of the same crime shall continue to be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and each act may be punished by a single comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5341, Aug. 22, 2003, etc.). The part of embezzlement of false benefit to J and K for the same period from August 2003 to July 2008, when the payment of wages to J andK was made by a single act that collects money equivalent to the sum of the said wages as checks. Since such acts were repeated each month, they should be punished by a single comprehensive crime.
However, the embezzlement of false benefits against L, the embezzlement of corporate driving funds in 2008, and the embezzlement of corporate driving funds in 2010 are different when each act was committed, and each of the above acts was conducted under the single criminal intent.
there is no evidence to determine the person.
Therefore, each of the provisions of the judgment No. 1 is established, and these are in a substantive concurrent relationship.