beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) There is no evidence that part of the embezzlement facts related to X among the 2017 Go-dan 2126 cases (the first half of June 9, 2015, the second half of August 27, 2015, and the second half of October 12, 2015) was remitted by the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict on this part, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact.
2) The lower court’s sentence (4 years of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B1) Recognizing the fact that the Defendant was not using the entire purchase price of TV paid in advance by the damaged party for the purchase of TV. However, this only adjusted the number of purchases in consideration of price fluctuations and inventory management, and the Defendant intended to supply the entire TV to the Defendant.
In addition, in the absence of the embezzlement of A, the defendant could fully supply TV or phishing can be used, so there is no intention or deception of fraud.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a conviction against the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact.
2) The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts (related to the instant case No. 2017 order 2126) the summary of this part of the facts charged (limited to X part) is as follows: (a) from May 1, 2013 to October 23, 2015, the Defendant served as the general manager in charge of TV sales and receipts in the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City U-gu U.S. Resolution Bank Co., Ltd. to the extent that the general manager in charge of TV sales and receipts.
Defendant 1, while engaging in the business of selling and collecting TV as above, had been able to use it at will while keeping TV sales proceeds in the business.
The Defendant sold TV to “X” and received the payment from the Defendant’s account in its name from March 2, 2015 to October 12, 2015, 42, TV 101 to 40,000,000.