beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A As to the crime of Section 2-b.2 of the judgment of the court.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered is unreasonable because each of the punishments (a fine of 2.5 million won, a fine of 2.5 million won, and a fine of 2 million won) declared by the court below is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. Notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act, where a public prosecutor makes ex officio a judgment on the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor on the prosecutor's ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A, and where a fine is imposed on concurrent crimes with regard to a crime prescribed in Articles 355 and 356 of the Criminal Act and another crime committed while in office as a public official, it shall be tried and sentenced separately [Article 33-2 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13618, Dec. 24, 2015)]. Crimes (b. 28, 2014) of the judgment of the court below falls under Article 356 of the Criminal Act committed by the defendant A, who is a public official, in relation to his duties while in office, constitutes a crime prescribed in Article 356 of the Criminal Act, but the court below recognized all of the remaining crimes against the defendant A and sentenced a fine, but the part of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be tried by applying Article 38 of the Criminal Act.
B. Each of the instant offenses in collusion with the co-defendant A, who is a public official of Defendant B, is recognized as having committed each of the instant offenses, where: (a) in collusion with the co-defendant A, a public official of Defendant B, submitted to a financial institution a false order for withdrawal of the court fee prepared by A; (b) and (c) embezzled the attorney’s refund, etc. of the office he/she had served as the head of the office; and (c) such offense is bad;
However, Defendant B has a strong variety of errors, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, each of the crimes of this case led by the co-defendant A, and the amount acquired by Defendant B out of the actual amount of embezzlement damage is a relatively small amount.