The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
1. Progress of litigation;
A. On May 20, 2015, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the Defendant on the charge of breach of trust and accusation, and on May 20, 2015, the lower court convicted the Defendant of both the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment.
B. The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s appeal by rejecting all of the Defendant’s allegations.
C. The Defendant filed a final appeal against the judgment before remanding. The Supreme Court accepted only the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the part of breach of trust, and rejected the ground of appeal on the part of breach of trust, on the ground that the judgment before remanding was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on calculating the amount of damages for breach of trust. The lower court reversed the entire judgment of the first instance court before remanding, which was in a concurrent relationship with the above part of breach
2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority (revision of indictment) is made, the prosecutor ex officio examined the defendant's facts charged against the defendant, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the statement of "the reasons for the judgment in which the indictment was written" as stated below. Since this court permitted this, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant cannot be maintained any more.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court, 【The facts constituting a crime and the summary of evidence recognized by the Court,” the second instance of the judgment of the court below, acquired the sum of the financial benefits equivalent to KRW 95 million for the defendant, and the victim, respectively.