The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

1. The lower court’s sentencing (three years of imprisonment with prison labor) against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants, while operating the farming association corporation, arbitrarily sold and embezzled grain amounting to KRW 1.1 billion in total while receiving a commission fee for the government’s reserved public grain in preparation for an emergency such as a natural disaster, etc.

The Defendants’ criminal liability is heavy in light of the specific contents and methods of the instant crime, the amount of damage, etc.

The Defendants’ act is fundamentally damaging the purpose of the public grain system, and criminal punishment corresponding to the degree of responsibility is necessary for the Defendants.

It is true that the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation received the amount equivalent to the amount of damage from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on December 2016. However, it is difficult to view that the above damage recovery was made by the Defendants in the situation where the Defendants did not perform their duty to pay the amount of compensation.

However, there are the following circumstances that should be taken into account in sentencing against the Defendants.

The Defendants submitted the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. a plan for the installment payment of indemnity amounting to KRW 50 million, and thereafter, are obliged to pay according to the plan.

Defendants recognized crimes and committed a mistake in depth.

Defendant

In the case of Defendant A, who is referred to B, the elderly, was in a state that health is not good due to chronic hiverosis, hiverosis, etc., and around March 2016, which was used as a brain stroke during the period of crime, and was implemented two hiversary surgery along with hospitalized treatment.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, gender, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, including the aforementioned various circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing judgment on Defendant B is discretionary.